Estimated Reading Time: 1 hours and 30 minutes
In the name of Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, his companions, and those who follow him. To proceed:
The correct clarification on the issue of excusing ignorance in shirk involves addressing four points:
The area of dispute concerns individuals who engage in excessive practices at graves—while identifying as Muslims—to the extent of falling into major shirk. These individuals acknowledge that worship is solely the right of Allah, yet they deny that what they are doing constitutes shirk and directing worship to others besides Allah. They have not been able to understand the clear prophetic evidence indicating that what they are involved in is major shirk.
Their ignorance pertains to the inclusion of certain actions within the definition of worship, not the exclusivity of worship to Allah alone, unlike the mushrikeen of al-Jaahiliyyah.
This excludes those who do not acknowledge the obligation of singling out Allah in worship, such as the Ismaa'eeliyyah, the Nusayriyyah, and the Druze. These people are specifically regarded as apostates and are not excused by ignorance or misinterpretation.
It also excludes those who had the opportunity to learn the prophetic evidence but turned away from it; such individuals are not excused by their ignorance and are specifically declared takfeer due to their statements or actions involving shirk. The criterion for determining the opportunity to learn needs to be clarified.
Additionally, asking a dead person to pray for one is considered minor shirk, and there is no known disagreement among scholars about this, until one of the late scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah classified it as major shirk. Some contemporary scholars have followed this view, but it is an odd opinion without precedent among earlier scholars, except for an attribution to ibn Taymiyyah who mentioned a consensus on this matter, but his explicit statements contradict this. I have detailed this in another work. (Source)
There has been ambiguity and confusion regarding the term "excuse of ignorance" as it has been used by opponents of the scholars of the Da'wah an-Najdiyyah, such as ibn Jirjees, in corrupt meanings that have no relation to the usages of scholars like ash-Shaafi'ee, ibn Hazm, ibn Taymiyyah, and others in various matters that nullify faith. Therefore, my intention in clarifying the various doctrines in what follows is to consider ignorance as an excuse due to the inability to access the prophetic evidence. This excludes those whose ignorance is due to turning away, and excludes matters where ignorance is not considered an excuse, especially those that explicitly contradict the fundamental principles of belief, love, reverence, acceptance, or submission, such as following a false prophet, cursing Allah Almighty, or outright mocking what is known of the Deen.
The scholars have historically differed on the area of dispute, both in the past and present. Their differences stem from whether to attribute the name of Islam to these individuals or not, and the criteria for establishing the evidence. They hold four main doctrines:
These scholars consider them specifically as kuffaar because the evidence in this matter is established merely by the existence of the Qur'an among them and their hearing about the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). This is the view of as-San’aani (in his first opinion), ash-Shawkani, Aba Bateen, 'Abdur-Rahman ibn Hasan, Ishaaq ibn 'Abdur-Rahman, Hamaad al-Faqee, ibn Ibraaheem, ibn Baaz, al-Jibreen, al-Fawzan, ar-Raajihee, at-Tarifi, Naasir al-Fahd, Ahmad al-Khaalidi, and Khaalid al-Mardhi al-Ghaamidee.
Its proponents add to the first doctrine's view by considering the evidence of the covenant—an innate rational evidence in their view—and based on this, they declare them kuffaar even if the prophetic evidence did not reach them. This is the view of 'Abdul-Majeed ash-Shaadhili and the author of "al-Jawaab al-Mufeed fee Hukm Taarik at-Tawheed" and Madhet al-Farraaj.
The ruling on a specific individual is that they are a mushrik, not a Muslim nor a kaafir. This is evident from the statements of Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab and explicitly stated by his two sons, 'Abdullah and Hussayn, and their students Hamad ibn Naasir ibn Mu'ammar and 'Abdul-Azeez al-Anqari. They were followed by 'Abdul-Lateef ibn 'Abdur-Rahman, and among contemporary scholars, Hamoud ibn 'Uqlaa' ash-Shu'aybi and 'Ali al-Khudayr.
He is considered a misguided Muslim, and there is no ruling of declaration of takfeer on a specific individual due to the existence of preventions. There is no distinction between shirk and other nullifiers of faith in requiring the fulfillment of the conditions for declaration of takfeer and the absence of preventions. This is the view of ibn Hazm, ibn al-'Arabi, adh-Dhahabi, al-Qaasimi, al-Mu'allimi, ibn Baadees, al-Basheer al-Ibraaheemi, al-'Afeefi, as-Sa'di, al-'Uthaymeen, al-Bassaam, and al-'Ulwaan.
This indicates that the claim of consensus on excusing ignorance in shirk, as mentioned by ibn Hazm in "al-Fasl," or its absence as mentioned by al-Qaraafi and Ishaaq ibn 'Abdur-Rahman, is not correct. Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly mentioned the existence of a disagreement in his fatwa on the Raafidhah of his time, describing them as engaged in the shirk of worshipping tombs. When he came to declaration of takfeer on a specific individual and their eternal abode in Hell, he noted a well-known disagreement on this matter.
As for what some contemporary scholars have attributed to Aba Bateen regarding the claim of consensus on the absence of excuse due to ignorance, it is a misunderstanding of his words. He attributed his view to the majority, and what he narrated as a consensus was the non-requirement of obstinacy to declare an individual a kaafir in the case of shirk. This is correct, and I have clarified this in the book "كشف الإلتباس عن مسألة العذر بالجهل في الشرك," which discusses the view of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and the scholars of the Da'wah an-Najdiyyah on the issue on excuse of ignorance in the shirk of worship, analyzing the statements of the scholars. I have summarized it in "كشف الإلتباس عن مسألة العذر بالجهل في الشرك."
Know that many proponents of these doctrines, who came after ibn Taymiyyah, claim to follow his doctrine!! Except for Aba Bateen, who explicitly states his disagreement.
The mistake of those who erred in interpreting ibn Taymiyyah's stance lies in not interpreting his words according to his principles, neglecting some of his statements and principles, and assuming that his stance and the stance of the scholars of the Da'wah an-Najdiyyah are the same. They interpret his words based on this assumption, which is an incorrect approach, regardless of his stance.
I have written extensively to clarify his stance, may Allah have mercy on him, in a series of articles compiled under the title "Series of Removing the Veil," pages 557-588 from the above-referenced book.
This concerns the terminology, but regarding the judgment itself, which includes the judgment on a specific individual with the warning of punishment in the Hereafter, according to the terminology of the scholars, that is, if he is eternally condemned to the Hellfire. This affirmation is held only by proponents of the first doctrine and some from the second doctrine, while proponents of the third and fourth doctrines, and some from the second doctrine, explicitly deny it.
This issue branches out from foundations from which the disagreement arises. Some of these are related to the foundations of belief, and some are related to the principles of jurisprudence. Any student of knowledge who researches this issue without considering its foundations will be deprived of reaching a conclusion. There are six foundational principles, and I will present most of them in the form of questions:
A - Is accountability for Tawheed established solely by the evidence of hearing, or also by rational evidence before the revelation?
B - Is ignorance excused in the foundations of the Deen?
C - General Indication on Situations: Does it Necessitate Generalization in Them or Is It Unrestricted in Them?
D - The issue of rational good and evil, as the statement that one is called a mushrik before the evidence reaches them branches out from it.
E - The issue of derivation, as the statement that anyone who engages in shirk is called a mushrik branches out from it.
F - Is there another category of people besides the three categories: Mu'min, Kaafir, and Munaafiq?
And the explanation of that is:
The meaning of this is: Is the ruling on accountability for obligations and prohibitions related to the issues of Tawheed and shirk contingent solely upon revealed evidence, in both general and detailed aspects? Or is it also established by rational evidence before the revelation?
This difference of opinion branches out into the ruling on the area of dispute. For those who have not been able to understand the prophetic evidence, which makes its deniers among the people of the Qiblah (i.e., those who outwardly appear to be Muslims according to the criteria set in the books of jurisprudence) kuffaar, they are not accountable for these matters because there is no accountability except by revelation. For such people, the Shar'i terms like kaafir and mushrik do not apply to them because the reality of declaration of takfeer—a legal ruling—is based on opposing the revelation in matters where such opposition constitutes disbelief and shirk.
However, according to the view that rational evidence imposes accountability before the arrival of revelation, the accountability for the aforementioned matters is established, and the terms kaafir and mushrik apply to the one who opposes.
The view that there is no accountability except through revelation, including in matters of Tawheed and shirk, and that obligations and prohibitions are only established through revelation, is the stance of Ahlus-Sunnah. It has been unanimously agreed upon by the Salaf, as stated by as-Sijzi, al-Laalikaa'i, al-Harawi, and ibn Taymiyyah.
The opinion that accountability in some matters—among them Tawheed—is established by reason before the revelation arrives, and that obligation and prohibition are also established by reason, is explicitly the view of the Mu'tazilah and is documented in their books. This view has remained within the creed of the Ashaa'irah, and some people of Ahlus-Sunnah have mistakenly followed them in this, as pointed out by ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah. I have explained this in detail in an article. (Source)
As for the Ayah on the Covenant (al-A'raaf 7:172-173) and its connection to this creedal principle, we find that those who interpreted it before explained it based on their creedal principles. Therefore, the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah interpreted it according to their principles:
We find ibn Qutaybah (may Allah have mercy on him) the khateeb of Ahlus-Sunnah, in his book "تأويل مختلف الحديث," saying about it: "And the initial acknowledgment does not establish a ruling or merit a reward." (p. 122-123). We find ibnul-Qayyim in his book "ar-Rooh," interpreting it to mean: the fitrah (innate disposition) and the reminders of the messengers regarding it. He supported this with ten arguments. His words in the book "ar-Rooh" refute the distortion by the author of "al-Jawaab al-Mufeed fee Hukm Taarik at-Tawheed" of his doctrine. We also find ash-Shanqeeti clearly stating in "Adwaa' al-Bayaan," in the context of his interpretation of the Ayah, invalidating the independent authority of reason apart from revelation.
When some contemporaries, foremost among them the author of "al-Jawaab al-Mufeed"—followed by others—relied on the statements of those who deviated from Ahlus-Sunnah and adopted the view of the Mu'tazilah regarding the accountability for Tawheed by reason, they interpreted the Ayah on the Covenant in light of this. They made the fitrah (innate disposition) and 'aql (reason) independent evidence for Tawheed apart from revelation?!!
This demonstrates the incorrectness of the second doctrine.
And regarding the disagreement on the criterion for the prophetic evidence, that is, by what means it is established:
Know that the opinion of the proponents of the third doctrine aligns with the opinion of the proponents of the fourth doctrine and contradicts the opinion of the proponents of the first doctrine. This means that the views of the early scholars of the Da'wah an-Najdiyyah differ generally from those of their later and contemporary scholars. This is not the only issue where their views differ, and I have compiled many such instances in "Kashf al-Iltibaas."
The opinion of the proponents of the first doctrine is refuted. Their view applies to those who have not been established with the ruling of apparent Islam from the original kuffaar. These individuals deny the exclusivity of worship to Allah alone and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah to all mankind, both Arabs and non-Arabs, and the Seal of the Prophets. This contrasts with the area of dispute, where the misguidance pertains to the specifics of worship—what actions fall under the definition of worship and what does not. Learning the specifics of worship is not an individual obligation on every Muslim, and thus, ignorance can occur in this matter. This requires the clarification of scholars. As Allah Almighty said about His Book:
هَذَا بَيَانٌ لِلنَّاسِ
"This is a clear statement for mankind" (Aal 'Imraan 3:138)
and to His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ
"So that you may explain to the people what has been revealed to them" (An-Nahl 16:44),
He also said to the scholars:
لَتُبَيِّنُنَّهُ لِلنَّاسِ
"To make it clear to the people" (Aali 'Imraan 3:187),
just as a non-Arab requires a translator to understand what is in the Qur'an, an Arab whose tongue has been affected by non-Arabic influences requires clarification. The successors of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in providing clarification are the scholars. The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets." This partial definition implies exclusivity; thus, the clarification that establishes the evidence rests with them. The statement of 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him): "The earth is never without someone standing up for Allah Almighty as a proof," includes an indication of this meaning. 'Abdul-Lateef ibn 'Abdur-Rahman explicitly stated this, and it only excludes those who independently grasp the meanings of the Qur'an.
And know that the area of dispute is not limited to those living in a distant desert or new to Islam, as suggested by Abu al-'Ala ar-Raashid—who leans towards the proponents of the second doctrine—and attributes this view to ibn Taymiyyah and the scholars of the Da'wah an-Najdiyyah. No one among them holds this view. Ibn Taymiyyah applied this to every land of ignorance, including large cities where ignorance spread after the prolonged control of the Faatimiyyoon and the Tatars. The criterion is any place likely to have widespread ignorance, as indicated by as-Suyooti. 'Abdul-Lateef explicitly stated that those living in distant deserts and new to Islam are merely examples. This is supported by some fuqahaa' who also include those residing in lands of war.
Regarding the criterion for the widespread availability of the prophetic evidence in a certain place, which allows one to judge the presence of the ability to learn the evidence, and at which point the one who turns away is considered a kaafir for opposing it even if they remain ignorant due to negligence, I have clarified this based on the words of scholars, including mufassireen and fuqahaa', in the book "Kashf al-Iltibaas."
The origin of the view that ignorance is not excused in the foundations of the Deen arose with the Mu'tazilah and then spread to many fuqahaa' of the four schools of thought who were unaware of the origin of this view, as noted by ibn Taymiyyah.
The Mu'tazilah considered the establishment of the existence of the Creator—and likewise, what is obligatory for Him in terms of attributes—as theoretical knowledge, not essential. This was because they did not affirm the reality of the fitrah (innate disposition). Consequently, they made Kalaami intellect inquiry obligatory and considered its evidence definitive and certain, for which ignorance or error is not excused. They concluded from this that the faith of the imitator (muqallid) is not valid and deprived the common Muslims of their innate faith (al-eemaan al-fitri). This view remains within the 'aqeedah of Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari, as stated by as-Samnaani, one of the followers of al-Baaqillaani. Based on this, al-Juwayni and as-Sanusi declared the common Muslims who are not knowledgeable in the Kalaamiyyah proofs of the existence of the Rabb, Most High, as kuffaar. This is the origin of the statement by some of the Mutakallimoon of the Usool that ignorance is not excused in the foundations of the Deen. Among those who held this view is al-Qaraafi in his commentary on "Tanqeeh al-Fusool," where he stated: "Therefore, Allah did not excuse him for ignorance in the foundations of the Deen by consensus," which some contemporary Ahlus-Sunnah scholars have cited as a consensus without realizing its Kalaamiyyah roots. Similarly, he stated in his book "al-Furooq": "The accountability for Tawheed and absence of excuse of ignorance in it is from the baab of accountability that is unbearable."!!
As for the Ahlus-Sunnah and the imams of the Salaf, they do not hold this view and affirm the excuse of ignorance in the foundations of the Deen as they do in its branches, with certain conditions and guidelines. There are many statements and actions from them that bear witness to this. Among those who have extensively followed and written on this subject are ibn Hazm in "al-Fisal" and ibn Taymiyyah in "al-Keelaaniyyah" and "al-Maardeeniyyah," where they highlighted the Kalaamiyyah roots of the opposing view. There are other statements by the imams of Ahlus-Sunnah and Hadith not mentioned by them, which I have compiled in an article in refutation of the Haddaadiyyah [Source].
|
|
All of this came in the context of discussing the Attributes of Allah and ash-Sharaa'ir al-Mutawaatirah, not about the shirk of worship. Some later scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah affirmed the excuse of ignorance regarding the Attributes in general, contrary to the Mu'tazilah, even if they differed in the ruling on the individual Jahmiyyah. They denied the excuse of ignorance in the shirk of worship, arguing that it is one of the foundations of the Deen, as if affirming the attributes of Allah, the Exalted, is not one of the foundations of the Deen. This is contrary to what a number of the imams of Ahlus-Sunnah and Hadith, such as Abu Haatim and Abu Zur'ah ar-Raazi, 'Uthman ad-Daarimi, Abu'l-Qaasim al-Asbahaani, and Abu 'Uthman as-Saabooni, have explicitly stated.
If we refer to the explanations, principles, and actions of ibn Taymiyyah, we find that he does not differentiate between these two foundations in excusing ignorance as long as the conditions for declaration of takfeer are not met and the obstacles are not removed (this will be evident from what will be quoted from his statements later on insha'Allah).
This is confirmed by the stance of the Salaf towards the narrators of hadith from the Qadariyyah, who filled Basrah as stated by ibn al-Madini, and among them were great memorisers. They accepted their narrations, including those in the two Saheehs, despite their belief that humans create their own actions, which is shirk in ar-Ruboobiyyah. The Salaf declared some of them as kuffaar, yet they did not make a general declaration of takfeer against all of them, as the consensus is that the noble hadith is not accepted from a kaafir.
This shows the error of those from the proponents of the third doctrine who relied on this argument—not all of them—such as Ishaaq ibn 'Abdur-Rahman and those contemporary scholars who followed him. They attributed this to Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, which is a misunderstanding of his views and is contradicted by what his sons and his shaykh 'Abdul-Lateef ibn 'Abdur-Rahman and ibn Sahmaan mentioned. While Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab's stance differed from the proponents of the fourth doctrine, many contemporaries mistakenly thought he agreed with them, and others thought he adhered to the first doctrine. I have clarified this in "Kashf al-Iltibaas."
The texts of takfeer and the judgment of associating others with Allah in the Kitaab and Sunnah generally come in general terms except in rare cases. By situations here, it means: choice, compulsion, intent, mistake, knowledge, ignorance, and interpretation.
Scholars of principles have differed on this matter. The majority of the Mutakallimoon of the Usool (متكلمة الأصوليين) held that the general (term) necessitates generalization in situations. Thus, the general includes situations just as it includes individuals, and nothing is excluded from this except by evidence that specifies that generalization. They call this verbal generalization. Based on this, the proponents of the first three doctrine said that the texts naming those who associate partners with Allah as kuffaar and mushrikeen are general texts, so their generalization includes the disputed matter, and this ruling includes the state of ignorance due to the indication of the general term necessitating generalization in situations, and there is no evidence specifying that. Therefore, the evidence remains general. In this sense, Aba Bateen, 'Abdul-Lateef ibn Abdur-Rahman, and Ishaaq ibn 'Abdur-Rahman argued.
And some investigators, including ibn Taymiyyah, have held that the general term does not necessitate generalization in situations and that it is unrestricted in them. This means that the judgment of a general text does not apply to its individuals except those who meet the conditions and are free of impediments. The conditions and impediments are known by referring to other texts that clarify the ruling on various situations, including the state of ignorance. The scholars of this view call this generalization by the unrestricted generality. Since most of the texts of promise, threat, takfeer, tafseeq, and cursing come in general terms, and these general terms are unrestricted in situations according to them, we find ibn Taymiyyah describing these rulings as unrestricted. He says: "the unrestricted promise," "the unrestricted threat," "the unrestricted takfeer," "the unrestricted tafseeq," and "the unrestricted cursing." He asserts that these unrestricted rulings do not necessarily apply to a specific person because the judgment of their general texts does not manifest in individuals unless the conditions are met and the impediments are removed. The ruling then applies to that specific individual according to their particular situations and in accordance with other texts that have come to explain the ruling on a specific individual in various situations. When evidence indicates the condition of a specific condition or the impediment of a specific impediment, we do not find ibn Taymiyyah distinguishing, when considering them, between the disputed matter and other matters of takfeer, as is evident in his rulings on the Qalandariyyah, the Shee'ah of his time, al-Bakri, al-Ikhnaa'ee, and others among the grave worshippers. He has established the principles of this regarding the Attributes and ash-Sharaa'ir al-Mutawaatirah in the Keelaaniyyah, and he refers to them when discussing the disputed matter, using the same evidence mentioned there. I have detailed this in the book "Kashf al-Iltibaas."
Therefore, we find that he mandates unrestricted general takfeer of grave worshippers due to the general indications in the texts of revelation concerning the takfeer of mushrikeen, which are unrestricted in terms of situations. Then he makes the specific takfeer of individual grave worshippers conditional on the fulfillment of conditions and the absence of impediments, which are related to various situations and differ from person to person and group to group.
If someone says that there is a valid disagreement on this matter, the response is: No, for ibn Taymiyyah asserts that the first opinion "does not exist," meaning it has no basis in the Arabic language, and he attributes his view to all the imams of the Salaf [See the box below for clarification]. He considers the confusion among different factions of the people of the Qiblah—whether they be Wa'eediyyah ("those who emphasize divine retribution") or Murji'ah ("those who delay judgment") regarding the ruling on major sinners without associating them with shirk in the texts of revelation. He attributes the confusion of the followers of the imams, as narrated by as-Sijzi, in understanding their imams' statements on declaring takfeer against innovators of disbelief to the lack of clarity regarding the general indication on situations. This is supported by evidence I have mentioned in "Kashf al-Iltibaas."
|
Additionally, one of the consequences of the belief that general indications necessitate general application to all situations is the claim that most general texts of the Quran are subject to specification, which diminishes their significance, as noted by ash-Shaatibi and ibnul-Qayyim. This pertains to the majority of the types of texts in revelation, as mentioned by ash-Shaatibi and as-Sa'di, whereas we find ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim refuting this view, explicitly stating that most general texts of the Quran are preserved. This is because most of the claimed specifications are related to situations, not individuals, and thus, they are not truly specifications but rather conditions and impediments. Many contemporaries have not realized the origin of this dispute, among other implications indicating the invalidity of this opinion, which I have clarified in "Kashf al-Iltibaas."
Thus, the error of the proponents of the first three doctrines becomes clear as they all rely on the indication of unrestricted generality. It's important to note that many contemporary scholars who do not excuse ignorance in matters of shirk, as well as those who do excuse it, are often completely unaware of the implications of general indications on situations and their relation to the general texts of promise, warning, takfeer, tafseeq and curses. You even find among them those who, on the one hand, assert that general texts necessarily imply unrestricted generality in all situations and, on the other hand, creedal differentiation between unrestricted takfeer and warning, asserting that such generality does not necessitate judgment on a particular individual unless its conditions are met.
|
Know that there are three creedal doctrines regarding the issue of rational good and evil:
The doctrine of Mu'tazilah: The intellect can discern the goodness or evilness of certain actions (such as the goodness of truthfulness and justice and the evilness of lying and oppression) before the revelation of the Shari'ah. They argue that this rational discernment leads to Shar'i obligations of commands and prohibitions, the assignment of Shar'i names by consensus, and the consequences for those who go against these principles. There is a difference of opinion among them, as noted by al-Haakim al-Jushami al-Mu'tazili in his Tafseer. Az-Zamakhshari, another Mu'tazili, chose in his Tafseer, "al-Kashshaaf," the view that no consequences should follow for those who oppose rational discernment, which is not the popular view among them. This disagreement among them is not mentioned by their opponents, who often portray it as if there is consensus among them. So be aware.
The doctrine of Ashaa'irah: The intellect does not perceive the goodness or evilness of actions before the revelation of the Shari'ah. They maintain that the determination of good and evil is strictly based on Shari'ah, with no involvement of the intellect whatsoever.
The doctrine of Ahlus-Sunnah: Stands as a middle ground on this issue. They acknowledge that the intellect can perceive the goodness and evilness of some actions before the arrival of the revelation. However, they deny that this rational perception imposes any Shar'i accountability. For them, accountability is dependent on divine revelation. Consequently, they also reject that any divine threat can be applied based on rational perception alone without the presence of revealed proof.
The Ahlus-Sunnah position has been detailed and supported by shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah. Among the significant points he made in his rebuttal against the Mu'tazilah and the Ashaa'irah are the following:
Section: Allah has distinguished between what comes before and after the message in terms of names and rulings, and this serves as evidence against both groups: those who claim that actions have no inherent goodness or badness, and those who assert that people deserve punishment on either view. The first group is incorrect because Allah describes certain individuals as unjust, rebellious, and corrupt due to their actions before the message reached them. [For instance,] He said,
اذْهَبْ إلَى فِرْعَوْنَ إنَّهُ طَغَى
"Go to Pharaoh; indeed, he has transgressed,"
and also,
وَإِذْ نَادَى رَبُّكَ مُوسَى أَنِ ائْتِ الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ قَوْمَ فِرْعَوْنَ أَلَا يَتَّقُونَ
"And when your Lord called Moses, saying, 'Go to the wrongdoing people, the people of Pharaoh; will they not fear Allah?'"
Furthermore, He said,
إنَّ فِرْعَوْنَ عَلَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَجَعَلَ أَهْلَهَا شِيَعًا يَسْتَضْعِفُ طَائِفَةً مِنْهُمْ يُذَبِّحُ أَبْنَاءَهُمْ وَيَسْتَحْيِي نِسَاءَهُمْ إنَّهُ كَانَ مِنَ الْمُفْسِدِينَ
"Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a group among them, slaughtering their sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters."
These descriptions indicate that actions can be inherently bad and blameworthy even before the arrival of the Messenger, although punishment is only due after the message has been conveyed, as He stated,
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا
"And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger." (Al-Israa' 17:15)
Similarly, [Allah] informed about Hud, who told his people,
اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مَا لَكُمْ مِنْ إلَهٍ غَيْرُهُ إنْ أَنْتُمْ إلَّا مُفْتَرُونَ
"... Worship Allâh! You have no other ilâh (god) but Him. Certainly, you do nothing but invent lies!" (Hud 11:50)
He labeled them as liars before passing judgment against them because they had associated another deity with Allah. Thus, the name "mushrik" is established before the message; for he associates others with his Rabb, sets equals to Him, and makes other gods alongside Him, and this is affirmed before the coming of the messenger. This also applies to the term "ignorance" and "ignorant," which are used as "ignorance" and "ignorant" before the coming of the Prophet. As for the punishment, it does not apply. And turning away from obedience, as in His saying:
فَلَا صَدَّقَ وَلَا صَلَّى وَلَكِنْ كَذَّبَ وَتَوَلَّى
"And he [i.e., the disbeliever] had not believed, nor had he prayed. But [instead], he denied and turned away." (Al-Qiyaamah 75:31-32)
only occurs after the Messenger, as said about Pharaoh:
فَكَذَّبَ وَعَصَى
"Then he turned his back, striving [i.e., plotting]." (An-Naazi'aat 79:22)
This happened after the Messenger came to him, as the Almighty said:
فَأَرَاهُ الْآيَةَ الْكُبْرَى فَكَذَّبَ وَعَصَى
"Then [Mûsâ (Moses)] showed him the great sign (miracles). But [Fir‘aun (Pharaoh)] belied and disobeyed." (An-Naazi'aat 75:20-21)
And He said:
فَعَصَى فِرْعَوْنُ الرَّسُولَ
"But Pharaoh disobeyed the messenger" (Al-Muzzammil 73:16)
In this context, ibn Taymiyyah affirms the application of the term "mushrik" (polytheist) before the arrival of the message. A group of contemporary scholars from the first three doctrines based their views on this statement of his. However, they misunderstood his intent due to their lack of familiarity with the intricacies of the Mutakallimeen doctrinces. Ibn Taymiyyah's statement was made in the context of refuting them, resulting in their confusion. His intent—in this context—was the linguistic reality of the term "mushrik," indicating its intellectual and moral reprehensibility, not its Shar'i status. The context pertains to rational condemnation before the arrival of the message, while these scholars interpreted it as Shar'i condemnation and intended its Shar'i reality. This interpretation of ibn Taymiyyah’s words, without realizing it, aligns with the Mu'tazilah perspective. The Shar'i condemnation and Shar'i realities are among the Shar'i rulings dependent on the arrival of revelation according to ibn Taymiyyah and by consensus of Ahlus-Sunnah, contrary to the Mu'tazilah. Thus, how can it be said that he intended the Shar'i reality of the term "mushrik" here before the arrival of the message due to its rational reprehensibility?!! This is exactly the Mu'tazilah stance.
A significant factor that led these individuals into this major error is their belief that anyone who does not impose the warning (wa'eed) before the arrival of the message has avoided the Mu'tazilah stance and is free from its influence. They overlooked that, although this may be the most well-known position among the Mu'tazilah, some of their leading imams report differing opinions among them. Therefore, what they agreed upon is the application of Shar'i rulings and Shar'i names based on rational condemnation, which is precisely the error these individuals fell into and attributed to ibn Taymiyyah's words. This misinterpretation of his statements happened without their realization.
And as a means of reorganizing what has been previously discussed and to provide further clarity and distinction between the doctrines of truth and falsehood, I seek Allah's help and say:
Those who affirm rational good and evil, after agreeing that the intellect can perceive the repulsiveness of certain things before the revelation arrives, differ in what they derive from this principle. I will present all their positions in hierarchical order:
First Level: Applying rational blame based on this perception.
Second Level: Applying linguistic names that indicate the repulsiveness and blame rationally (such as: wrongdoer, tyrant, corrupt, mushrikt).
Third Level: Applying accountability and Shar'i blame according to obligations and prohibitions.
Fourth Level: Applying Shar'i names based on this perception (such as: righteous, immoral, Muslim, mu'min, kaafir, munaafiq, mushrikeen).
Fifth Level: Applying the entitlement to divine threat due to the presence of its cause, with the application of it being conditional on the fulfillment of its prerequisite, which is the establishment of the prophetic proof.
Sixth Level: Applying the divine threat to the specific individual engaged in what the intellect perceives as repulsive.
Based on this, there are two important notes:
The second note: The first and second levels are explicitly interrelated, as are the third and fourth levels, except for those whose principles is weak and contradictory.
I will now proceed to
As for the first level, it is a point of agreement between them.
As for the second level, Ahlus-Sunnah affirms it, as mentioned by ibn Taymiyyah [See: Majmoo' al-Fatawa 20/37-38, which has been referenced before]. They differentiate between this and the fourth level, while the Mu'tazilah combine them into a single level. This is the crucial point in distinguishing between the two doctrines.
As for the third level, only the Mu'tazilah affirm it. This is different from affirming the obligation of Tawheed based on rational evidence, which is a point of agreement among the Mutakallimeen. Regardless, the result is the same, which is the affirmation of Shar'i accountability in Tawheed and abandoning shirk based on rational evidence.
As for the fourth level, it too is affirmed only by the Mu'tazilah, due to its necessary connection with the third level. It should be noted that these two levels—the third and the fourth—are points of consensus among the Mu'tazilah as a whole.
As for the fifth level, it has been explicitly mentioned by scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah, such as ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim. This was done to clarify the intended meaning behind the denial of the sixth level.
As for the sixth level, it is a mistake to think that it is a point of consensus among the Mu'tazilah, and that anyone who disavows it has completely distanced themselves from the Mu'tazilah's doctrine on rational good and evil. The reality is not so; while this might be the prevalent view among them, some of their leading figures have stated that this is the opinion of the majority and most of them. This is noted by al-Jashami and ibn Abi al-Hadeed, who were both Mu'tazilah. Among those who explicitly disagreed with this view, even after stating their commonly held opinion, is the Mu'tazili az-Zamakhshari in his "al-Kashshaaf." The lack of awareness about this has contributed to inadvertently aligning with a segment of the Mu'tazilah's doctrine without realizing it.
What the imams of the Salaf unanimously agreed upon is that there is no accountability except through hearing, and that accountability is not established through reason, including the command for Tawheed and the prohibition of shirk. This consensus was mentioned by as-Sijzi, al-Laalikaa'i, al-Harawi, and ibn Taymiyyah.
This is despite their consensus on the intellect’s recognition of the goodness of Tawheed and the repulsiveness of shirk. This general understanding from them was mentioned by as-Sijzi, and explicitly stated by ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim.
|
Thus, the imams of the Salaf are unanimously agreed on affirming the first level and rejecting the third and sixth levels.
The root of the error made by those who confused the doctrine of Ahlus-Sunnah with that of the Mu'tazilah is their conflation of the second and fourth levels related to the meaning of names. They mixed up linguistic names indicating the rational repulsiveness of their meanings—names that do not depend on the coming of revelation for their application and do not entail a divine threat for violating rational evidence—with Shar'i names, which do depend on the coming of revelation for their application and do entail a divine threat for violating revealed evidence. Two factors contributed to this confusion:
The first reason is that the term "mushrik" in its Shar'i meaning generally does not differ from its linguistic meaning. It falls under both the second and fourth levels. The well-known saying of the Arabs in Jaahiliyyah in their Talbiyah (pilgrimage call) was: "Here I am, O Allah, at Your service, You have no partner except a partner who is Yours; You own him and everything he owns."
The second reason is the misconception that the sixth level, related to the application of divine threat, is agreed upon among the Mu'tazilah. They believe that anyone who denies this has distanced themselves from the Mu'tazilah's position on this issue. They are unaware that the true point of consensus among the Mu'tazilah, which clearly differentiates them from Ahlus-Sunnah, is actually the third and fourth levels. These levels pertain to the application of accountability and Shar'i names based on rational evidence. The sixth level is merely a derivative of the third and fourth levels according to the majority of them.
Therefore, the one who avoids the Mu'tazilah's stance is the one who does not base Shar'i accountability and the application of Shar'i names on rational repulsiveness before the revelation arrives and before the prophets are sent, particularly in matters of Tawheed and shirk. This confusion between the doctrines of Ahlus-Sunnah and the Mu'tazilah is what led to this misunderstanding.
As for those who affirm the fourth level without the third, it stems from their ignorance of usool al-fiqh and their contradiction. Their contradiction in this regard is actually better for them and less harmful.
To further clarify what has been explained about ibn Taymiyyah's assertions in this regard, he does not see a contradiction between calling the subject of dispute a "mushrik" in its linguistic sense, as a rational denouncement and condemnation of his actions, and calling him a "Muslim." There are numerous examples to support this, but I will highlight the strongest evidence and briefly summarize the others:
In the book "ar-Radd 'ala al-Ikhnaa'ee," we find ibn Taymiyyah discussing al-Ikhnaa'ee and his likes, where he says about them at one point:
The intent is that what was prescribed for his Ummah is different from the purpose sought by the innovators in traveling to visit the graves of prophets and righteous people. These innovators do not travel for the legislated acts of praying for them and seeking forgiveness for them, but rather to pray to them, seek their intercession, and ask them for favors. They turn their graves into places of worship, idols, and gatherings, which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prohibited in authentic ahaadeeth. How can what he forbade and prohibited be compared to what he legislated and did? This point confuses this objector and others like him; their mistake in this matter is not unique to him. We aim to be fair and seek the truth and justice in this matter as Allah commanded. Allah commanded justice even with our enemies, as He said:
كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ لِلَّهِ شُهَدَاءَ بِالْقِسْطِ ۖ وَلَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَىٰ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا ۚ اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَىٰ ۖ
"Stand out firmly for Allâh as just witnesses; and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety" (Al-Maa'idah 5:8)
So how much more with our Muslim brothers? Muslims are brothers, and may Allah forgive him, guide him, and grant success to him and all our Muslim brothers.
And he said about them in another place [page 480]:
Whoever criticizes someone who follows what is clear to them from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and does not permit themselves to oppose it and follow others, is wrong and blameworthy by the consensus of Muslims. How then, if the person calls to actions that lead to major shirk, such as supplicating to other than Allah, taking them as idols, and making pilgrimage to places other than the House of Allah—especially when they prefer such pilgrimages over or equate them with the pilgrimage to the House of Allah? These mushrikeen and fabricators, like this objector and those like him, deserve jihaad, and the clarification of what they call to of misguidance and corruption, and what they prohibit of guidance and righteousness, so that the word of Allah is supreme and the Deen is entirely for Allah.
He referred to the matter under dispute in several contexts when discussing their similarity to the mushrikeen—sometimes in the context of shirki supplication, sometimes in shirki intercession, and sometimes in worshiping intermediaries to draw closer to Allah—as "the innovators among the Muslims," "the innovators of this Ummah," "the ignorant and misguided of this Ummah," and "the misguided among the people of the Qiblah." You can find this in various parts of his works, such as in "at-Tawassul wal-Waseelah" [see: Majmoo' al-Fatawa 2/249-252 and 259-262, and 111], "Iqtidaa' as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem 1/159-162" [ed. Naasir al-'Aql], and Majmoo' al-Fatawa 17/181. This is further evidenced by his citing the hadith "Allah has overlooked for my Ummah their mistakes" in several places when discussing the takfeer of individual grave-worshippers. There are many other instances, which I have detailed in "Kashf al-Iltibaas."
I conclude with what he said after mentioning that anyone who obeys the Shaytan in disobeying Allah acquires a degree of association with the Shaytan proportional to that disobedience, which can be either major or minor shirk:
And as for if a person takes what he desires as a god besides Allah and loves it as he should love Allah, this is major shirk. The degrees in this vary, and many people have enough faith in Allah and His Oneness to save them from Allah's punishment, yet they fall into many of these types of shirk without realizing it. They do not know that Allah has forbidden these acts, and the message from Allah regarding this has not reached them. Allah the Almighty says,
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا
"And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger." (Al-Israa' 17:15)
These people are numerous in places and times where the true message is scarce due to the lack of those upholding Allah's proof. Such people might have enough faith to be shown mercy and might not be punished for many things that others are punished for because the proof of the message has not reached them. It is necessary to understand that the entitlement of people to punishment for shirk and other sins is conditional upon the message having reached them regarding the foundations and branches of the Deen.
And as for his affirmation of the salvific faith in the context of the dispute, which is a general faith, he has mentioned this in other instances. However, regarding the salvific Tawheed, I have only found it mentioned in this particular context.
If someone were to ask: How can ibn Taymiyyah reconcile this with his labeling of such a person as a mushrik, considering that he defines a Muslim as a Muwahhid and states that Tawheed and shirk are contradictory and cannot coexist?
The answer is: What ibn Taymiyyah means by the salvific Tawheed in the context of the dispute is general Tawheed, which is the belief that only Allah is worthy of worship. As for the shirk in which the disputed individual has engaged, this major shirk is a cause for nullifying faith. However, the cause, as a situational ruling, requires the fulfillment of its condition and the absence of any impediment to take effect. Ibn Taymiyyah has explicitly mentioned this in several contexts (this is contrary to the Mutakallimoon of the Usool from the Ash'ariyyah, who denied the real influence of situational rulings such as cause, condition, and impediment. They treated these as metaphorical, not real, influences. Hence, they called them indicators and considered the impediment as removing the ruling rather than preventing it in reality) therefore, if the condition is not fulfilled and the impediment exists, the cause's effect is nullified, and the general faith and Tawheed remain. Consequently, the name "Muslim" remains applicable to him.
As for his labeling of certain individuals from the disputed context sometimes as Muslims and other times as mushrikeen, his intention by "mushrik" refers to its linguistic meaning, which indicates rational blame before being able to know the prophetic proof. This proof demonstrates that a particular action or statement is considered, in the Deen of Allah, as worshiping other than Allah, major shirk, and disbelief that takes one out of Islam. When there is an inability to learn this proof, the obligation to avoid such acts is nullified according to Shari'ah, as there is no accountability in Tawheed except through revelation. Therefore, the term "mushrik" in this sense does not conflict with the term "Muslim," as it does not entail individual takfeer.
In contrast, the term "mushrik" in its Shari'ah meaning applies to an individual after they have had the opportunity to learn the previously mentioned proof, which entails accountability. This leads to individual takfeer and does not coexist with the term "Muslim."
This understanding aligns with ibn Taymiyyah's principles and the overall meaning of his statements.
And for those who think this entails equating the Muwahhid with the mushrik, here is ibn Taymiyyah clarifying in his refutation of al-Ikhnaa'ee what nullifies this assumption, where he said:
Then, for those upon whom the proof has been established, they deserve punishment. Otherwise, their acts of innovation, which are prohibited, are invalid and have no reward. These acts reduce their status according to their deviation from the Sunnah. This is the judgment upon the people of misguidance, who are far from the straight path and do not receive the honor due to its followers.
Then, for those upon whom the proof has been established, they deserve punishment. Otherwise, their distance, deficiency, and lowered rank, as well as the degradation they face in this world and the Hereafter, and the loss of their honor and status, is their recompense. And Allah is a just judge who does not wrong even the weight of an ant. He is All-Knowing, Wise, and Gentle to whom He wills.
And in another passage, he explained the reason for the lowered status, saying:
And the result of committing the forbidden act is a lowered status and the loss of many blessings that he had, even if he is not punished with harm.
He continued, saying:
The one who neglects their duties and performs wrongful deeds, even if not punished with severe pain like the fire, will be deprived of blessings and the means that constitute their reward. This is the consequence for those who do not show gratitude for their blessings but instead deny them; they will be stripped of those blessings. Gratitude preserves blessings and leads to an increase, while disbelief, after the establishment of proof, warrants punishment. Before that, it diminishes blessings and does not increase them.
End quote from Majmoo' al-Fatawa.
This demonstrates the error of those from the three earlier doctrines, especially the third doctrine, who assert that one who has not received the hujjah from the grave worshippers is neither a Muslim nor a kaafir but rather a mushrik. This assertion is based on their error. Their claim is innovation and deviates from the views of the scholars, as cited by ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah, who discussed whether every kaafir is a mushrik. Their view resembles the Mu'tazilah position of a rank between two ranks (manzilah bayna manzilatayn) and introduces a third rank beyond what is mentioned in the Book of Allah: Mu'min, Kaafir, and Munaafiq.
Attributing this innovation rank to ibn Taymiyyah is incorrect and misrepresents his stance. Among the evidence indicating his stance on excusing ignorance in matters of disbelief related to the innovations of the Jahmiyyah, he stated that such issues are based on two principles: First, that people are either mu'mineen, kuffaar, or munaafiqeen; and second, that the rulings of takfeer, like those of divine threat, are general and do not apply to individuals unless the conditions are met and the impediments are removed. He clarified that this is the "decisive word" on the matter, elaborating on these two principles in "al-Keelaaniyyah." When addressing the specific ruling in question, he frequently referred to these principles, as I have detailed in "Kashf al-Iltibaas."
It was explicitly stated by Aba Bateen and his contemporaries from the scholars of the third initial doctrines that one who falls into shirk is called a mushrik just as one who falls into adultery is called an adulterer. This is referred to as the issue of derivation. Their stance is based on the principles of Ash'ariyyah, not the Ahlus-Sunnah. Their stance stems from their disagreement with the Mu'tazilah regarding the Attribute of Allah's Speech, as mentioned by az-Zarkashi in "al-Bahr Al-Muheet." The Mu'tazilah deny that an Attribute inherent in a being necessarily warrants the derivation of a name such that the action is attributed to the described entity and not to another. They aim to deny that the one in whom Speech is inherent is Allah, asserting instead that He is the Speaker, not any of His creations.
Noting that the majority of Ashaa'irah did not consistently apply their stance in the context of the Divine Names, they held that these names are based on Tawqeefiyyah (i.e. revelation), except for a few among them like al-Baaqillaani, ibn al-'Arabi, and al-Qurtubi, who derived names from the Attributes of Allah. Following their approach would necessitate calling anyone who affirms faith a "Mu'min" based on language, naming anyone who performed a prayer without its pillars a "prayer performer," which contradicts his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) statement to the one who prayed poorly: "Pray, for you have not prayed." It would also mean labeling any woman who committed adultery a "fornicator" even without her confession or four witnesses, which would validate the act of the slanderer despite the mandatory punishment for slander. Additionally, it would mean deriving the name "the deceiver" and "the schemer" for Allah based on His statements {وَيَمْكُرُونَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللَّهُ} and {يُخَادِعُونَ اللَّهَ وَهُوَ خَادِعُهُمْ}.
And as for the Ahlus-Sunnah, they differentiate between linguistic names and Shar'i names (including the Beautiful Names of Allah known through revelation). Since the terms "Mu'min," "the one who prays," and "adulterer" have both a linguistic meaning and a Shar'i meaning—the former being broader and more general than the latter, and the latter being narrower and more specific—Shar'i rulings related to these names are tied to their Shar'i meanings, not their linguistic meanings. Therefore, the designation of someone as a Mu'min, or one who prays, or a woman as an adulteress and sinner, and the application of Shar'i punishment to her, has conditions and impediments.
Similarly, with one who falls into shirk, expelling someone from Islam among the people of the Qiblah is a Shar'i ruling, not a linguistic or rational one. Otherwise, it would be necessary to apply this to all acts that are deemed as kufr, thus closing the door to excusing ignorance entirely, which is the stance of the Khawaarij.
This clarifies the error of those who derived their stance on this issue from among the proponents of the first three doctrines.
Summary of the opinions on these doctrines: This disagreement is not considered significant or worthy of extensive contemplation. The valid perspectives align with the doctrines of the Ahlus-Sunnah on the two foundational principles. Any doctrine not based on these principles is flawed due to its incorrect foundations. This perspective aligns with the fourth doctrine, and any doctrine based on other foundations is considered invalid. Abu 'Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Sallaam said, "I am amazed at those who abandon the foundations and seek the details," which later scholars rephrased as "Whoever is deprived of the foundations is deprived of reaching [the truth]." Those in this state are prone to fall into the error that ibn Taymiyyah warned about in "as-Saarim al-Maslool," stating, "... Taking the opinions of fuqahaa' from general statements without referring to their explanations and the implications of their principles leads to reprehensible positions." This is a mistake made by many contemporary scholars when discussing the doctrines of past scholars.
It should be noted that many later scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah, and especially contemporary ones, unknowingly adopt some views of the people of innovation through the books of Usool al-Fiqh, predominantly authored by people of al-I'tizaal, Ash'ariyyah, or Maaturidiyyah. There are many examples of this. The major works of Usool al-Fiqh mentioned by ibn Khaldoon include four main sources: two by Mu'tazilah, Qaadhi Abdul-Jabbaar and Abu'l-Hussayn al-Basri, and two by Ash'aris, al-Juwayni and al-Ghazaali. Ibn Taymiyyah notably emphasized this issue, which relates to building Usool on foundations, meaning constructing the principles of jurisprudence on the principles of faith, specifically their Kalaamiyyah creed.
It is also worth mentioning that there are other similar issues, most of which amount to distorting ibn Taymiyyah's doctrine, such as his views on apparent versus hidden issues and on the type of disbelief that results in punishment. I have detailed these matters in "Kashf al-Iltibaas," and here I have only mentioned the main points concerning the two foundational principles, which some early and later scholars relied on, due to many contemporary scholars' ignorance of their Kalaamiyyah roots.
On the other hand: among the statements of those who excuse ignorance in shirk that hold no weight are those of ibn Hazm in "al-Fasl," where he says: "And whoever says that Allah, the Almighty, is a specific human being, or... or that after Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) there is another prophet besides 'Eesa ibn Maryam, then there is no disagreement among anyone in declaration of takfeer due to the clear evidence against this being established for everyone. Even if it were possible for someone to follow this belief without ever having the evidence contradicting it, he would not be declared takfeer until the evidence is established against him." This is a position that he maintains in alignment with his apparent principles, but it is not accepted when it comes to practical application. What he deemed unlikely has been proven to exist by contemporary scholars, let alone its potential occurrence. This position is considered anomalous.
Similarly, there are those who use ignorance as a crutch to avoid declaring a specific person as a kaafir under any circumstances for those associated with Islam.
There are also those who reject any form of blame regarding the matter in dispute, without distinguishing between the Shari'i blame specific to individuals, which is conditional on the ability to understand the prophetic evidence, and rational blame, which is based on intellectual reprehensibility. This blanket rejection of blame does not align with the stance of Ahlus-Sunnah on the issue of rational good and bad, but rather aligns with the Ashaa'irah who deny rational good and bad, claiming that nothing is good or bad except through Shari'i commands and prohibitions.
Worse than all of this are the statements of ibn Jirjees regarding the excuse of ignorance, which are layers of darkness. He considered ignorance as a barrier to declaring major shirk as major kufr, considering them instead as minor shirk. He also required obstinacy for declaration of specified takfeer. This is the core issue addressed in the refutations by Aba Bateen and 'Abdul-Lateef ibn 'Abdur-Rahman against him.
Ibn Taymiyyah, at the beginning of his book "al-Eeman al-Awsat," emphasizes the importance of a fundamental principle and its relation to the declaration of takfeer against people of innovation of disbelief (أصحاب البدع المكفرة):
So we say: What is known from the Book, the Sunnah, and the Ijmaa', which has been transmitted through mutawaatir from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and what is necessarily known from the Deen of Islam, the Deen of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), is that during his time in Madinah, people were classified into three categories: Mu'min, kaafir openly manifesting disbelief and munaafiq, who outwardly appears to be a Muslim but is inwardly a kaafir. This classification is why Allah revealed the mention of these three categories at the beginning of Surah al-Baqarah.
Then he listed the evidences for this extensively from the Book of Allah until he concluded by saying:
So, this is a fundamental principle that should be understood as it is crucial in this context. Many who discuss matters of faith and disbelief, particularly when it comes to declaring takfeer against the people of desires, have not considered this aspect. They fail to distinguish between outward and inward judgments, despite the clear distinction made in mutawaatirah texts and well-known consensus. This distinction is also known inherently from the Deen of Islam.
Anyone who reflects on this will understand that many among the people of desires and innovations might actually be Mu'mineen who are mistaken, ignorant, or misguided regarding some aspects of what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) brought. However, some might be munaafiqeen or zanaadiqah who outwardly show something different from what they inwardly believe.
This indicates that there are three categories and no fourth category.
And he said in another place:
The definitive word in this matter is to mention two principles: Firstly, it must be known that a kaafir in reality from among the people of prayer can only be a munaafiq. Since Allah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), revealed the Qur'an to him, and he migrated to Madinah, people have been divided into three categories: a Mu'min in him, a kaafir in him who openly shows disbelief, and a munaafiq who conceals disbelief. This is why Allah mentioned these three categories at the beginning of Surah Al-Baqarah: He described the Mu'mineen in four verses, the kuffaar in two verses, and the munaafiqeen in several Ayat.
Until he said:
And if that is the case, then among the people of innovation, there are those who are munaafiqeen zanaadiqah... And among the people of innovation, there may be those who have faith both inwardly and outwardly, but they have ignorance and injustice that lead them to errors regarding the Sunnah. Such a person is neither a kaafir nor a munaafiq. They may exhibit transgression and injustice that make them sinful or disobedient, or they may be mistaken and excused due to their error. Moreover, they may possess such faith and piety that they maintain a degree of Allah's friendship according to their faith and piety. This is one of the two principles.
The second principle is that a statement can be disbelief, such as denying the obligation of prayer, zakat, fasting, and Hajj, or permitting adultery, alcohol, gambling, and marriage to prohibited relatives. However, the one who says it might not be declared takfeer if the message has not reached them. For instance, someone new to Islam or living in a remote area where the Islamic teachings have not reached, such a person is not judged as a kaafir for denying what was revealed to the Messenger if they are unaware that it was revealed to him. The doctrines of the Jahmiyyah fall into this category, as they deny what is known of the Rabb and what Allah has revealed to His Messenger.
This principle is like both principles in his al-Keelaaniyyah message [See: Majmoo' al-Fatawa 12/466-501], and everyone who has written in modern times to explain ibn Taymiyyah's view on takfeer, regardless of the doctrine they attributed to him, has overlooked these two principles of his.
If an objector raises the point that all these statements are related to the proponents of innovation of disbelief, and this is outside the area of dispute, the response is as follows: ibn Taymiyyah, in his discussions about the shirki practices of grave worshipers, referred to al-Keelaaniyyah in multiple places and argued for the excuse of ignorance in shirk for those who were unable to know the evidence of the prophetic proof. He indicated that the general takfeer for those who fall into shirk from the area of dispute does not necessitate specific takfeer unless the conditions are met, using the same evidence and reasoning found in al-Keelaaniyyah, and based this on the same two principles. There are many indications of this, which I have explained in "Kashf Al-Iltibaas." However, his application of the second principle from "Fasl al-Khitaab" in the area of dispute is clearer than his application of the first principle. Here, I will clarify his application of this principle in the area of dispute and what indicates that he derived the ruling of the area of dispute based on this principle:
And the indications of this from his words are:
And I will mention here in summary: You find in the entirety of his words when discussing the takfeer of grave worshipers in his fatwas regarding the Qalandariyyah, the Raafidhah of his time, and in his response to al-Bakri and others, the same evidences he used in his fatwa on the Keelaaniyyah and in the Maardeeniyyah, among others, concerning the proponents of innovation of disbelief:
For example, the hadith "Indeed, Allah has overlooked for my Ummah mistakes..."—reflect on this—and the hadith of the man who doubted Allah's ability to resurrect him and was forgiven because of his fear of Allah. Also, the consensus of the fuqahaa' that those who deem forbidden things lawful are not to be declared takfeer if they live in remote areas or are new to Islam, and other similar instances.
In the entirety of his words concerning grave worshipers, he refers to another place where he elaborates on these principles and calls it the "Principle of Takfeer" and in other places names it differently to indicate its content—as is his habit in naming his books with different, yet similar titles. These descriptions align only with al-Keelaaniyyah.
He distinguishes between the statement and the speaker, between unrestricted takfeer and specified takfeer with its prerequisites, just as he does in his discussions on the proponents of innovation of disbelief, as seen in al-Keelaaniyyah and elsewhere. All these pieces of evidence from his words are detailed in "Kashf Al-Iltibaas."
And all of this means that he followed a single principle regarding takfeer and did not differentiate in this matter between grave worshipers and the proponents of innovation of disbelief. Although there are differences in his words based on other considerations, which I have explained in "Kashf Al-Iltibaas." This implies that those whom ibn Taymiyyah did not declared takfeer from the grave worshipers, he affirmed their Islam for them.
Evidence of this from his comprehensive statements includes his citation of the hadith: "Indeed, Allah has overlooked for my Ummah mistakes..." which pertains to the people of the Qiblah from the Ummah of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). He also described the subject of dispute as having faith that will save them on the Day of Judgment. His most explicit statement on this matter is: after mentioning that whoever obeys the Shaytan in disobeying Allah has a degree of shirk with the Shaytan proportional to that disobedience, and that this may be major or minor shirk, he said:
And as for if a person takes what he desires as a god besides Allah and loves it as he should love Allah, this is major shirk. The degrees in this vary, and many people have enough faith in Allah and His Oneness to save them from Allah's punishment, yet they fall into many of these types of shirk without realizing it. They do not know that Allah has forbidden these acts, and the message from Allah regarding this has not reached them. Allah the Almighty says,
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا
"And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger." (Al-Israa' 17:15)
These people are numerous in places and times where the true message is scarce due to the lack of those upholding Allah's proof. Such people might have enough faith to be shown mercy and might not be punished for many things that others are punished for because the proof of the message has not reached them. It is necessary to understand that the entitlement of people to punishment for shirk and other sins is conditional upon the message having reached them regarding the foundations and branches of the Deen.
And he confirms his affirmation of Islam for the subject of dispute by calling them in:
|
Regarding the application of this principle:
People are categorized as a Mu'min both outwardly and inwardly, a kaafir both outwardly and inwardly, and a munaafiq who is a kaafir inwardly but believers outwardly, meaning they are subject to the ahkaam of the people of Islam. Thus, in terms of apparent rulings, people are either Muslim or kaafir. Therefore, anyone whom ibn Taymiyyah did not specifically judge as a kaafir is considered a Muslim according to him.
This clarifies the error of those who consider the subject of dispute as a fourth category: a mushrik who is neither a Muslim nor a kaafir. This is an innovation, based on the misunderstanding of his statement about affirming the name without the ruling before the proof has reached, in accordance with the Mu'tazilah principles of rational good and bad, as previously explained. This does not conform to either of the two established views among scholars about whether every mushrik is a kaafir and not every kaafir is a mushrik, or that every kaafir is a mushrik and every mushrik is a kaafir. Attributing this to ibn Taymiyyah is a misrepresentation, as it contradicts this principle and many of his statements. Thus, it is clear that he does not hold the view of the proponents of the third opinion, and it is incorrect to attribute this view to him.
And whoever claims that his intention was to deny the takfeer of the Hereafter but not worldly takfeer, this is a novel terminology that none of the fuqahaa' adhere to, and it is a distortion of his words. For takfeer among all of them — as explicitly stated by ibn Taymiyyah — falls under the category of "names," whereas Hereafter divine threats falls under the category of "judgments." This is countered by the principle on which he based the matter and by his explicit statement at the end of his fatwa concerning the contemporaries of the Raafidhah, whom he described as mushrikeen — the distinction between unrestricted and specified applies to both matters, saying:
As for declaring them takfeer and deeming them to be eternally condemned to Hell, there are also two well-known views among the scholars, both of which are attributed to Ahmad. These two views pertain to the Khawaarij, the renegades from the Harooriyyah, the Raafidhah, and others of their ilk. The correct view is that these statements they make, which are known to contradict what the Messenger brought, are indeed kufr, and likewise, their actions, which are akin to the actions of the kuffaar against the Muslims, are also kufr. I have mentioned the evidence for this in other places. However, declaring takfeer against a specific individual among them and ruling that they will be eternally in the Fire is contingent upon the conditions for takfeer being met and the impediments to it being absent. Thus, we make unrestricted statements based on the texts of divine threat, takfeer, and tafseeq, but we do not judge a specific individual to fall under these general statements until the requisite conditions are met without any impediments. I have elaborated on this principle in the "Principle of Takfeer."
Then he reasoned and used the same evidence that he mentions when discussing the followers of innovation of disbelief and those who deny the ash-sharaa'ir al-mutawaatirah, until he said:
The ruling of kufr is not established except after the message has been conveyed. Many of these individuals may not have received the texts that contradict their views, nor do they know that the Messenger was sent with that message. Thus, it is stated that this statement is kufr, and takfeer is only applied when the proof has been established upon the individual, which renders them a kaafir if they neglect it; otherwise, it does not apply. And Allah knows best.
Thus, it became clear that he does not adhere to the first or second doctrine and that it is incorrect to attribute that to him.
If someone were to claim that ibn Taymiyyah considered the subjects of the dispute— including the Raafidhah of his time, whom he described as mushrikeen—to be among those with major nifaaq, this would also be a misrepresentation. If he indeed held such a view, how could he justify his reference to the hadith: "Allah has forgiven my Ummah for their mistakes," and his statement that one of them might have a little faith by which they would be saved on the Day of Resurrection?!! This is aside from his explicit statement to the contrary in Minhaaj as-Sunnah, where he said:
Thus, no Raafidhi or Jahmi exists except that they are either munaafiq or ignorant of what the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) brought.
(5/161), and he said:
Indeed, among the Imaamiyyah, despite their extreme ignorance and misguidance, there are individuals who are genuinely Muslim both inwardly and outwardly, and they are not zanaadiqah munaafiqeen. However, they are ignorant, misguided, and follow their desires. As for their major leaders who are well aware of the true nature of their secretive, esoteric call, they are zanaadiqah munaafiqoon. But the common folk among them who are not aware of the hidden aspects of their matter might indeed be Muslims.
(2/452)
If someone claims that this contradicts his assertion of "the correlation between the outward and the inward" and that "Tawheed and shirk do not coexist," implying that the term Islam cannot be applied to the subject in question, the response is that the contradiction exists only in the mind of someone who has distorted his doctrine, neglected his principles on the matter, and forced other principles that were not applied correctly. Here is a brief explanation showing the absence of this supposed contradiction and demonstrating that correct application does not conflict with what was previously stated. A detailed explanation can be found in "Kashf al-Iltibaas" and in various other contexts.
As for why this does not contradict his assertion that "Tawheed and shirk do not coexist":
Ibn Taymiyyah's explanations clarify this in his fatwas about the Raafidhah of his time, where he previously stated:
And he mentioned in his book concerning the prohibition of shedding Muslim blood, their property, and their honor, and the prohibition of backbiting, defamation, and slander: that they are the most people to violate these prohibitions. He also mentioned in his book the command to unity and harmony and the prohibition of division and disagreement: that they are the furthest people from adhering to this command. He further mentioned in his book the obedience to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) love for him, and following his rulings: that they are excluded from this obedience. Additionally, he mentioned in his book the rights of his (the Prophet's) wives, which they are entirely free from. And he mentioned in his book the Tawheed of Allah, the sincerity in His Dominion, and the worship of Him alone without partners: that they have strayed from it. For indeed, they are mushrikoon as stated in the hadith because they are the most people who venerate the graves that have been taken as idols besides Allah. This is a subject that is lengthy in its description.
This statement implies that "Tawheed and shirk do not coexist," yet it did not prevent him from saying it, indicating that they brought the general concept of Tawheed, which is the acknowledgment that no one deserves worship except Allah. However, they deviated in the detailed aspects of Tawheed and could not acquire knowledge of the prophetic evidence that, if contradicted, leads to takfeer. So, although they committed an act that contradicts Tawheed, which is a cause for kufr, "its effect can be contingent upon the presence of its conditions and the absence of its preventions," as ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in his Majmoo' al-Fatawa 12/484. Thus, he acknowledged their general Tawheed. In contrast, those who were aware of the prophetic evidence and deliberately turned away, ibn Taymiyyah declares takfeer against them specifically. Similarly, those who did not bring even the general Tawheed, such as the Ismaa'eeliyyah, ibn Taymiyyah also declares takfeer against them specifically, both outwardly and inwardly, judging them as having greater nifaaq if it is not apparent. He does not require the prophetic evidence to be conveyed to declare takfeer on this group, as they are not included in the Prophet's saying: "Allah has forgiven my ummah for their mistakes," which will be elaborated upon. These two latter categories are not the subject of our dispute.
|
As for the lack of opposition in his view to "the correlation between the outward and the inward":
This is indicated by his fatwa on the Qalandariyyah, where he described their condition:
...or follows a religion that contradicts the Deen with which Allah sent His Messenger both inwardly and outwardly: such as ...
He then mentioned the types of apparent and hidden shirk and kufr they were involved in, and said:
All these people are kuffaar if they manifest that, and munaafiqoon if they do not manifest it. And these types, even though they have become numerous in this era due to the scarcity of callers to knowledge and faith and the weakening of the effects of the message in most lands, many of them do not have any of the traces of the message and the inheritance of prophethood by which they recognize the guidance, and many of them have not been reached by that. And in times of gaps and places of gaps, a man is rewarded for the little faith he has, and Allah forgives in such cases for those on whom the proof has not been established what He does not forgive for those on whom the proof has been established, as in the well-known hadith...
He mentioned the hadith of Hudhayfah about the old man and the old woman who do not know anything of the pillars of Islam except the word of Tawheed (the declaration of faith), until he said:
The foundation of this matter is that the statement which is considered kufr by the Quran, the Sunnah, and the consensus is declared as kufr in an unrestricted sense based on the Shar'i evidences. For "faith" is one of the rulings received from Allah and His Messenger; it is not something people judge based on their own assumptions and desires. It is not necessary to judge every individual who has made such a statement as a kaafir until the conditions of takfeer are established in his case and the impediments to it are removed. This applies, for example, to someone who has said...
And he began to provide examples of disbelief other than shirk, such as deeming alcohol and usury permissible for someone who is new to Islam or lives in a distant desert. He also mentioned the hadith of the man who doubted Allah's ability to resurrect him, yet Allah forgave him due to his fear. He cited Allah's forgiveness of errors for this Ummah, among other examples, concluding his words by saying:
And we have elaborated on the principles mentioned in this response in their respective places, and this fatwa does not accommodate further expansion. And Allah knows best.
(Majmoo' al-Fatawa 35/164-166)
|
Likewise, his previous statement in Jaami' ar-Rasaa'il (1/191), where he mentioned the love associated with shirk, which is a form of internal shirk. Despite acknowledging the existence of internal shirk, this did not prevent him from maintaining all his previous assertions. The correlation between the outward and the inward in his view is a matter of divine decree. Accordingly, any kufr or shirk that manifests outwardly is driven by an existing kufr or shirk inwardly. The opponent must choose between two options, which he already addressed: either to apply this principle to what are called "hidden matters," thereby closing the door to the excuse of ignorance entirely, which is the view of the Khawaarij; or to deny this correlation in hidden matters, thereby falling into a branch of the Jahmiyyah and Ashaa'irah view.
|
The excuse of ignorance, with its conditions and regulations, applies—according to ibn Taymiyyah—to those who fall into acts of kufr and shirk outwardly, as well as to those who fall into acts of kufr and shirk inwardly. As for his assertion that someone who is outwardly a kaafir must necessarily be a kaafir inwardly, this is a response to the Jahmiyyah and Ashaa'irah who innovated the concept that a person could be a Mu'min inwardly while being a kaafir outwardly and still be among those saved on the Day of Judgment. Some of them even claimed that someone who insults Allah without deeming it lawful does not disbelieve. His intent, as is clear from his statements, is that such apparent kufr negates what is essential for a person's Islam, such as reverence, love, and compliance, which cannot be excused by ignorance. Alternatively, it implies one of the three types of kufr: denial, stubbornness, and turning away, which only occur when the proof has reached someone who then rejects, denies, or stubbornly resists it. Since the Jahmiyyah and Ashaa'irah believe that faith is merely knowledge and assent, they see kufr as occurring only through denial, thus they do not acknowledge the correlation between the outward and inward.
All this falls outside the scope of the dispute. Hence, it becomes clear that there is no contradiction between the matter of affirming the excuse of ignorance in shirk with its conditions and regulations, and the two principles: "the correlation between the outward and inward" and that "Tawheed and shirk do not coexist." This holds true both in reality and according to ibn Taymiyyah. The perceived conflict exists only in the mind of the opponent who misinterpreted ibn Taymiyyah's position, failed to understand his principles, and did not interpret his statements in their proper context, thus producing a disjointed view where his statements seem contradictory.
With all that has been previously discussed regarding the six principles, it becomes evident, by the grace of Allah and His assistance, that the correct position on the matter is the fourth doctrine. This is indeed the position of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, and the disagreement on this matter is not valid since the other doctrines are not consistent except on flawed principles.
The opponent habitually claims that the evidence against excusing ignorance in shirk from the Qur'an and Sunnah is clear and explicit. They even assert there is a consensus on this issue, claiming that their opponents have no evidence from the Qur'an, Sunnah, or the statements of any of the Salaf of the Ummah. They overlook that the evidence they present are merely doubts, as their arguments are only valid based on innovative principles that have already been refuted. The correct interpretation of the Qur'an and Sunnah will not be reflected correctly on the Kalaamiyyah. As for the claim of consensus, it is invalid because the disagreement is well-established.
Regarding the evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah that supports excusing ignorance in shirk within the context of the dispute, the correct reflection of their meaning can be understood through Sunniyyah. This understanding is evident to minds not clouded by bias or Kalaamiyyah doubts. This evidence falls into two categories: Evidence specifically related to shirk, which the opponent focuses on exclusively. Evidence related to general acts of kufr. Even if this category alone existed, it would suffice as evidence. The rationale is that there is no significant difference between requiring the establishment of detailed proof in individual cases of shirk and in individual cases of other acts of kufr. Both are nullifiers of Islam and causes of apostasy, as kufr and shirk are synonymous according to some views, or kufr is broader than shirk according to others. Thus, the same impediments to takfeer apply to various acts of kufr, including shirk, as shirk is a type of kufr. This is unproblematic based on the unrestricted generality in situations. It only becomes problematic if one insists that general terms necessitate generality in all situations, a view that ibn Taymiyyah argued does not exist in the Arabic language and opposed the understanding of the Salaf, suggesting that those who hold this view have been influenced by non-Arabic linguistic traditions [أي أن أصحابها من العجمة أوتوا].
The second type of evidence is abundant. Due to its volume, only select examples will be mentioned here, which are often overlooked by the opponent. Those interested in more comprehensive references can find them in the works of ibn Hazm, as well as in ibn Taymiyyah’s discussions in “al-Keelaaniyyah,” “al-Maardeeniyyah,” and “al-Qalandariyyah.”
Here, I will cite two Ayah, three hadiths, and statements from the Salaf concerning two innovations described as shirk:
Allah the Almighty said:
وَجَاوَزْنَا بِبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ الْبَحْرَ فَأَتَوْا عَلَىٰ قَوْمٍ يَعْكُفُونَ عَلَىٰ أَصْنَامٍ لَّهُمْ ۚ قَالُوا يَا مُوسَى اجْعَل لَّنَا إِلَٰهًا كَمَا لَهُمْ آلِهَةٌ ۚ قَالَ إِنَّكُمْ قَوْمٌ تَجْهَلُونَ إِنَّ هَٰؤُلَاءِ مُتَبَّرٌ مَّا هُمْ فِيهِ وَبَاطِلٌ مَّا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ قَالَ أَغَيْرَ اللَّهِ أَبْغِيكُمْ إِلَٰهًا
And We took the Children of Israel across the sea; then they came upon a people intent in devotion to [some] idols of theirs. They [the Children of Israel] said, "O Moses, make for us a god just as they have gods." He said, "Indeed, you are a people behaving ignorantly. Indeed, those [worshippers] - destroyed is that in which they are [engaged], and worthless is whatever they were doing." He said, "Is it other than Allāh I should desire for you as a god..." (Al-A'raaf 7:138-140)
And the evidence for these Ayat is that the apparent meaning of what the Banu Israa'eel said to Musa (peace be upon him) indicates that they approved of what they asked for and believed it wouldn't harm their religion if it was sanctioned by the law. This is supported by the mufassireen:
Al-Baghawi and as-Sam'aani in their Tafseer said: "They thought that this wouldn't harm the religion."
Ibn 'Atiyyah in his Tafseer stated: "The apparent meaning of the statement of the Bani Israa'eel to Musa... is that they approved of what they saw from the idols of those people and wanted it to be part of the law of Musa and among the things to get closer to Allah."
Ibnul-Jawzi in his Tafseer mentioned: "This is information about their great ignorance, as they imagined the permissibility of worshiping others besides Allah after witnessing the signs."
Ibn 'Ashoor in his Tafseer also said: "And the comparison in their statement, 'just as they have gods,' was meant to urge Musa to respond to their request and to express their delight at what they saw from the condition of the people who settled among them. It is enough of a disgrace for the Ummah's intellects to consider the detestable as good."
And this statement from the Bani Israa'eel contradicts the renunciation of shirk, which is one of the two pillars of the kalimah related to the negation indicated by the saying of the Almighty,
إِنَّنِى بَرَآءٌۭ مِّمَّا تَعْبُدُونَ
"... Indeed, I am disassociated from that which you worship” (Az-Zukhruf 43:26),
and the Ayah,
فَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِٱلطَّـٰغُوتِ
“Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût” (Al-Baqarah 2:256)
Although they had generally achieved this and it was indicated by their acceptance of Islam and their renunciation of Fir'awn and his religion, they did not achieve it in this particular instance due to their extreme ignorance. Even though this was one of the nullifiers of Tawheed, the excuse of ignorance was considered for them, and thus, their apostasy was not judged. This is indicated by the words:
وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِقَوْمِهِۦ يَـٰقَوْمِ إِنَّكُمْ ظَلَمْتُمْ أَنفُسَكُم بِٱتِّخَاذِكُمُ ٱلْعِجْلَ فَتُوبُوٓا۟ إِلَىٰ بَارِئِكُمْ فَٱقْتُلُوٓا۟ أَنفُسَكُمْ ذَٰلِكُمْ خَيْرٌۭ لَّكُمْ عِندَ بَارِئِكُمْ فَتَابَ عَلَيْكُمْ ۚ إِنَّهُۥ هُوَ ٱلتَّوَّابُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ
And [recall] when Moses said to his people, "O my people, indeed you have wronged yourselves by your taking of the calf [for worship]. So repent to your Creator and kill yourselves [i.e., the guilty among you]. That is best for [all of] you in the sight of your Creator." Then He accepted your repentance; indeed, He is the Accepting of Repentance, the Merciful. (Al-Baqarah 2:54),
Al-Mu'allimi al-Yamaani said in his book “al-‘Ibaadah”: “It appears from Musa’s response (peace be upon him) that although he denounced them, he did not consider their request as apostasy from the religion. This is evident as they were excused here and not punished similarly to when they worshipped the calf. It seems here—Allah knows best—this was due to their recent acceptance of the faith.”
Similarly, the first evidence indicates that the detailed evidence must be conveyed to declare specified takfeer in matters where understanding the contradiction to the evidence depends on knowing its details. It is not sufficient in this case to declare specified takfeer based on their knowledge of the general evidence that commands the worship of Allah alone without any partners. This is because the general evidence was conveyed to them by the sending of Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) to them, and they had believed in that. The Exalted, says:
وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِى كُلِّ أُمَّةٍۢ رَّسُولًا أَنِ ٱعْبُدُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَٱجْتَنِبُوا۟ ٱلطَّـٰغُوتَ
And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], "Worship Allāh and avoid ṭāghūt." (An-Nahl 16:36),
And
وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا نُوحِىٓ إِلَيْهِ أَنَّهُۥ لَآ إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّآ أَنَا۠ فَٱعْبُدُونِ
And We sent not before you any messenger except We revealed to him that, "There is no deity except Me, so worship Me." (Al-Anbiyaa' 21:25),
And
يُنَزِّلُ ٱلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةَ بِٱلرُّوحِ مِنْ أَمْرِهِۦ عَلَىٰ مَن يَشَآءُ مِنْ عِبَادِهِۦٓ أَنْ أَنذِرُوٓا۟ أَنَّهُۥ لَآ إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّآ أَنَا۠ فَٱتَّقُونِ
He sends down the angels, with the inspiration [i.e., revelation] of His command, upon whom He wills of His servants, [telling them], "Warn that there is no deity except Me; so fear Me." (An-Nahl 16:2),
And
فَمَآ ءَامَنَ لِمُوسَىٰٓ إِلَّا ذُرِّيَّةٌۭ مِّن قَوْمِهِۦ عَلَىٰ خَوْفٍۢ مِّن فِرْعَوْنَ وَمَلَإِي۟هِمْ أَن يَفْتِنَهُمْ
But no one believed Moses, except [some] offspring [i.e., youths] among his people, for fear of Pharaoh and his establishment that they would persecute them. (Yoonus 10:83),
And
وَأَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَىٰ مُوسَىٰ وَأَخِيهِ أَن تَبَوَّءَا لِقَوْمِكُمَا بِمِصْرَ بُيُوتًۭا وَٱجْعَلُوا۟ بُيُوتَكُمْ قِبْلَةًۭ وَأَقِيمُوا۟ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ
And We inspired to Moses and his brother, "Settle your people in Egypt in houses and make your houses [facing the] qiblah and establish prayer..." (Yoonus 10:87)
Despite this, the excuse of ignorance was considered for them, and they were not judged with the same ruling as those who worshipped the calf. It is incorrect to object to this by saying that it was because they did not start worshipping other than Allah, as the point of the evidence relates to their lack of renunciation of this shirk. Thus, the claim that they did not fall into what nullifies Tawheed is invalid.
And the condition of those who practice grave worship in the disputed matter is similar to these people.
If someone argues that this implies I must excuse the original mushrikeen and not declare takfeer against them, the response is that this is not required due to three distinctions between the two types:
First distinction: They (the people of Musa) associated this with the permission of the law and made an error in their request, thinking that what they admired could be permitted by Allah and His Messenger, Moses (peace be upon him). They did not initially believe in the divinity of anyone other than Allah. In contrast, the original mushrik believes in the divinity of other than Allah from the start, as indicated by the Ayah:
أَجَعَلَ الآلِهَةَ إِلَهًا وَاحِدًا
Has he made the gods [only] one God?... (Saad 38:5)
And
مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَىٰ
"We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to Allāh in position." (Az-Zumar 39:3)
Their association of this with the religion of a prophet does not benefit them, just as the mushrikeen of Arabia were not benefited by their association with the Deen of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him).
Second distinction: They did not begin to worship other than Allah. Had they done so, it would have been with the knowledge that they were worshiping others beside Allah and taking another god alongside Allah. Their ruling would then be the same as that of the calf worshippers, whose leader, as-Saamiri, said:
هَٰذَا إِلَٰهُكُمْ وَإِلَٰهُ مُوسَىٰ فَنَسِيَ
... "This is your god and the god of Moses, but he forgot." (TaHa 20:88)
Third distinction: They had already established the contract of Islam, which cannot be removed from them except with certainty, unlike the original mushrik.
If someone argues that according to this, one must excuse due to ignorance those who worship other than Allah while believing in divine permission, and who affiliated with Islam:
The response is that their state is similar to that of the kuffaar of Quraysh. They thought that what they were following was the Millah of Ibraaheem and believed it brought them closer to Allah, as Allah says,
مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَىٰ
"We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to Allāh in position." (Az-Zumar 39:3)
Their state is also similar to those who followed as-Saamiri, thinking that Musa (peace be upon him) had forgotten, as Allah says,
هَٰذَا إِلَٰهُكُمْ وَإِلَٰهُ مُوسَىٰ فَنَسِيَ
... "This is your god and the god of Moses, but he forgot." (TaHa 20:88)
Their misguidance is related to their belief that their actions were in line with reality and their engagement in these acts, seeking refuge with Allah from such misguidance. Allah has judged them as disbelievers, while the ignorant people among the followers of Musa did not believe that anything other than Allah could be worshiped initially. They thought that such actions could occur with divine permission and thus be legitimate, which is why they requested permission due to their profound ignorance. Their misguidance was primarily related to the conceptual possibility and the potential for its legitimacy by divine law. They did not engage in or believe in such acts. Allah did not judge them as He did those who followed as-Saamiri, indicating that there is a significant and valid distinction between the two, showing that they are not the same.
The Exalted says:
وَمَا كَانَ اللَّهُ لِيُضِلَّ قَوْمًا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَاهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يُبَيِّنَ لَهُم مَّا يَتَّقُونَ
"And Allah would not let a people stray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid..." (At-Tawbah 9:115)
Before I explain how this Ayah serves as evidence, I will cite some of what the Salaf have mentioned in its tafseer:
Ibn al-Mundhir narrated that 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood (may Allah be pleased with him) used to give a sermon to his companions every Thursday evening, and he would say: "...O people: By Allah, I do not fear that you will be held accountable for what has not been clarified to you, as Allah has said:
وَمَا كَانَ اللَّهُ لِيُضِلَّ قَوْمًا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَاهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يُبَيِّنَ لَهُم مَّا يَتَّقُونَ
"And Allah would not let a people stray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid..." (At-Tawbah 9:115)Cited by the author of al-Mannaar.
Adh-Dhahhaak said: "Allah would not punish a people until He makes clear to them what they should do and what they should avoid." This was mentioned by al-Baghawi in his Tafseer.
Al-Baghawi also said in his Tafseer: "This means that Allah would not take them to task until He has made the path clear to them, and once He has done so, they deserve the misguidance if they do not follow it."
Ibn Katheer stated in his Tafseer: "It means that Allah does not misguide a people after the message has reached them, until the proof has been established against them."
Abu'l-Qaasim al-Asbahaani said in "al-Hujjah Fee Bayaan al-Mahajjah": And Allah, the Most Glorified, has informed us that He does not hold anyone accountable except after clarification, and He does not punish except after warning. The Almighty said:
وَمَا كَانَ اللَّهُ لِيُضِلَّ قَوْمًا بَعْدَ إِذْ هدَاهُم
"And Allâh will never lead a people astray after He has guided them..." (At-Tawbah 9:115)
Therefore, anyone whom Allah has guided and has entered into the fold of Islam does not fall into kufr except after the clarification (of the truth) has reached him. (End quote, 2/552)
And this Ayah is among the Ayat that ibn Taymiyyah used to argue for the excuse of ignorance in shirk. The indication of its meaning is in two ways:
The first way: The particulars of shirk fall under the general statement of the Almighty:
حَتَّىٰ يُبَيِّنَ لَهُم مَّا يَتَّقُونَ
"until He makes clear to them what they should avoid" (At-Tawbah 9:115),
as the term {ما} is a relative pronoun and is among the terms of generality. Thus, the specifics of shirk are included in this. Ibn 'Abbaas said regarding the Almighty's statement:
بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَوْفَىٰ بِعَهْدِهِ وَاتَّقَىٰ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ
"But yes, whoever fulfills his commitment and fears Allāh - then indeed, Allāh loves those who fear Him." (Aali 'Imraan 3:76)
{بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَوْفَىٰ بِعَهْدِهِ وَاتَّقَىٰ} "It means: fears shirk." {فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ} "those who avoid shirk," as narrated by ibn Jareer.
The second point is that the particulars of shirk are included in the generality of Almighty's statement {ليضل} because the verb in the context of negation implies generality by the agreement of the usooliyyeen, as it encompasses an indefinite source. This agreement was noted by az-Zarkashi and ash-Shanqeeti. Almighty said,
وَمَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا
"... and whoever sets up partners in worship with Allâh, has indeed strayed far away." (An-Nisaa' 4:116)
The meaning of misguidance in Almighty's statement {ليضل} is the Shar'i meaning that entails divine threat and applies to individuals upon the establishment of the proof {حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ} "until it becomes clear to them", by the indication of the concept of the term, and not the linguistic meaning which does not entail divine threat and only indicates their moral reprehensibility and condemnation rationally. This is established for them before the statement reaches them. The use of misguidance in its linguistic sense before the revelation appears in Almighty's statement {وَوَجَدَكَ ضَالًّا فَهَدَى} "And He found you lost and guided [you]" (with a difference in context) and in the hadith Qudsi where Almighty says: "O My servants, all of you are astray except those whom I have guided."
If it is said that the clarification has already been given in the Qur'an, as in Almighty’s statement {لِأُنذِرَكُم بِهِ وَمَن بَلَغَ} "So that I may warn you thereby and whoever it reaches", the answer is that in times and places of ignorance where the light of knowledge is dimmed, this can be hidden from the people due to their inability to access this knowledge. They need the clarification from scholars, who are the inheritors of the Prophet in conveying the message, as Almighty said {لَتُبَيِّنُنَّهُ لِلنَّاسِ} "so that you may make it clear to the people". 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) described them as standing with Allah’s proof. He said, "Allah has taken a covenant from the ignorant to learn until He has taken a covenant from the knowledgeable to teach," as narrated by al-Baghawi. There is no contradiction between the two Ayat {حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ} "until it becomes clear to them" and {وَأَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ} "We revealed to you the message so that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them".
The statement of the servant girl about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "And among us is a Prophet who knows what will happen tomorrow." This is reported by al-Bukhaari from the hadith of ar-Rubayyi' bint Mu'awwadh. The context of the hadith indicates that she was a discerning child, as she mentioned who among her fathers was killed on the day of Badr. Her statement attributes knowledge of the unseen to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) by saying "what will happen tomorrow," with "what" being a relative pronoun that implies generality. This is contrary to the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) own saying, also reported by al-Bukhaari: "The keys of the unseen are five, none knows them except Allah," and among them, he mentioned: "and none knows what will happen tomorrow except Allah." Imam Ismaa'eel ash-Shaheed ad-Dahlawi considered this to be major shirk in his book "Radd al-Ishraak" and its explanation "Risaalah at-Tawheed." Despite this, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not declare her a disbeliever; rather, he rebuked her for her excessive praise of him and said: "Leave this and say what you were saying before." The consideration remains regarding her age as a discerning child and whether this age implies that her apostasy would be considered as valid as her acceptance of Islam, or not? The disagreement on this issue is well known.
He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Allah has forgiven for my Ummah their mistakes." This meaning is generally agreed upon among the fuqahaa', as noted by ibn al-'Arabi al-Maaliki. This concept is also supported by the concluding Ayat of Surah al-Baqarah.
Ibn Taymiyyah frequently cited this in various cases of kufr, whether in matters of shirk, negation of Attributes, or denial of ash-sharaa'ir al-mutawaatirah. He even stated: "And if it is established by the Book, as explained by the Sunnah, that Allah has forgiven this Ummah for mistakes and forgetfulness, then this is a general principle that remains preserved. There is nothing in the Shar'i indications that necessitates Allah punishing someone from this Ummah for their mistakes, even though He may punish those who make mistakes from other nations." (Al-Fatawa 12/490) The basis of his reasoning with this:
The mistake (الخطأ) is the opposite of intention (العمد). A person is only considered intentional in their action if they are aware of its reality and intend it with their will. Just as the lack of intention for the action, due to the desire for something else—as happened with the person who said, "O Allah, You are my slave and I am your Lord" due to extreme joy, as reported in Saheeh Muslim—negates intention, so too does the lack of knowledge about the reality of the action due to ignorance or misinterpretation negate intention. Therefore, they are also considered mistaken. There is no significant difference between these two types of mistakes that would warrant excusing the first type while not excusing the second, as both are not intentional in their action.
His (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saying, "for my Ummah," implies that those who are not part of his Ummah are excluded from this. This excludes the original kuffaar, which is explicitly stated by ibn Hazm, ibn Taymiyyah, and ash-Shanqeeti. Also included are those similar to them, such as those who do not accept that worship is a right solely for Allah, like the Ismaa'eeliyyah, Nusayriyyah, and Druze, and those who do not believe that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of His prophets, such as the followers of false prophets like Musaylimah in the past and the Qaadiyaaniyyah in the present.
His (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saying, "mistakes," excludes what cannot be conceived as such, which explicitly necessitates the absence of: the essence of belief, love, reverence, acceptance, or compliance. This includes those who adhere to the illusions of the philosophers, the interpretations of the Baatiniyyah, those who believe in the unity of existence, the proponents of incarnation and union, those who mock or curse Allah and His Messenger, those who hold globalist ideologies that deny the binding nature of Shari'ah rulings in politics across all times, and those who abandon all practical obligations after knowing them without performing any of them.
As 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "He who seeks the truth but errs is not like one who seeks falsehood and attains it." Thus, the ignorance of the ignorant—due to their inability to access knowledge, which excludes those who deliberately avoid it—differs fundamentally from the zandaqah of the zindeeq.
Thus, it becomes clear why ibn Taymiyyah considered the generality of the hadith as "a generality that is preserved" and not specific, as is necessitated by the stance of the mutakallimeen (in his book, "al-'Udhr bil-Jahl Tahta al-Majhar ash-Shar'i," Medhat al-Firaaj distorted ibn Taymiyyah's words by claiming that he considered the generality specific, and he supported this claim with the statement of al-Qaadhi 'Iyaadh al-Ash'ari!!). This clarifies ibn Taymiyyah's use of the hadith in the context of the debate about the grave worshippers in several instances, considering them part of the Ummah because they do not dispute the necessity of exclusively worshipping Allah alone, in general. This inclusion of their shirk under the term "mistake" is due to their ignorance of the fact that their actions fall under the definition of worship.
The hadith of the man who doubted Allah's ability to resurrect him:
This is found in as-Saheehayn. Ibn Taymiyyah and ibn al-Wazeer have mentioned that this hadith is mutawaatir, with ibn Taymiyyah specifically noting that he frequently cited it in discussions with his contemporaries about the issue on excuse of ignorance. He also referenced it in his writings on various acts that lead to kufr, including shirk.
This hadith has been subject to extensive interpretation by various hadith commentators. Many contemporary scholars have relied on these interpretations to divert the hadith from its apparent meaning, often without recognizing the Usool of Kalaamiyyah underpinnings of these interpretations. Ibn Hazm and ibn Taymiyyah referred to these interpretations as distortions, explaining their reasons briefly. Here's an outline of why they considered these interpretations distortions:
And know that most of the hadith commentators who interpreted this hadith were Maatureedi and Ash'ari. They were driven to this interpretation because this hadith conflicts with their Kalaami principles, which they call the "foundations of the Deen." This Kalaami framework, derived from the Mu'tazilah, was previously discussed under the second principle titled "Is Ignorance Excused in the Foundations of the Deen?" According to their interpretation, this man who doubted Allah's ability to resurrect could not be excused for his doubt because the Attribute of Divine Power must be affirmed rationally through Kalaam by consensus among the mutakallimeen, including the Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, and Maaturidiyyah. They assert that ignorance and error cannot be excused in this matter.
Furthermore, the affirmation of resurrection is examined in 'Ilm al-Kalaam books under the category of auditory evidence rather than rational evidence. They consider its proof to be purely based on auditory evidence, with no role for rationality—contrary to the apparent meaning of the Ayat and the stance of Ahlus-Sunnah. Consequently, some among them diverted the hadith from its apparent meaning by suggesting that his doubt pertained only to his resurrection and not to Allah's Divine Power!!
The principles of al-I'tizaaliyyah that lead to the distortion of the hadith are emphasized by the fact that the first person to object to its apparent meaning was 'Amr ibn Ubayd, may Allah disfigure him. Ad-Dawlabī mentioned in "al-Kunā wal-Asmā'" [number: 2554]: Abu Musa Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna narrated to us, he said: Abu Ghassaan 'Awf ibn al-Hasan narrated to us, he said: Idrees ibn Idrees narrated to us, he said: Nooh ibn Qays narrated to us, he said: “We had a funeral attended by some people of hadith among whom was 'Amr. They mentioned this hadith that a man said to his family, 'When I die, burn me then crush me.' Amr said, 'By Allah, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) never said this at all. If he had said it, I would be the first to disbelieve in it, and if disbelieving in it is a sin, then I am persistent in that.'”
And when ibn Jareer at-Tabari mentioned the disagreement among people about this hadith and narrated the most famous interpretations of it, interpreting "قدر" to mean "restricted", he associated their interpretation with something not mentioned by others, which is their statement: "And by fear and repentance, he was saved from the punishment of Allah, the Almighty." Requiring repentance for salvation from major sins is the belief of the Mu'tazilah, and they mention it under the principle of affirming the divine threat, which is one of their five principles.
And in contrast to these, among those who explicitly stated the implication of taking the hadith at face value are:
Mu'aawiyah ibn Haydah (may Allah be pleased with him) — as mentioned by at-Tahaawi — and that is sufficient, along with az-Zuhri, the hadith scholars of Basrah, ibn Qutaybah, ibn 'Abdul-Barr, al-Khattaabi, ibn Hazm, ibn Taymiyyah, ibnul-Qayyim, ibn Abi'l-'Izz, and ibn al-Wazeer.
The first among the contemporaries to gather the interpretations of the mutakallimeen in support of them, and introduce them to the contemporary Sunni circle, influencing others, was the author of "al-Jawaab al-Mufeed fee Hukm Taarik at-Tawheed". Then came Abu'l-'Alaa ar-Raashid following his path — both belonging to the same intellectual school as ash-Shaadhili and Medhat al-Farraj — and compounded the issue by striving to attribute the statements of many scholars who did not interpret the hadith to the interpretation of the hadith.
All that I have mentioned here regarding the interpretation of the hadith briefly, except for a little, has been detailed in several places in "Kashf al-Iltibaas", including the distortions of Abu'l-'Alaa ar-Raashid about the statements of several scholars regarding the hadith. Praise be to Allah for His guidance.
Where imam Abu'l-Hasan Muhammad ibn Aslama at-Toosee (died 141 AH, and was highly regarded by ibn Raahuwayh) said: The Jahmiyyah claimed that the Qur'an is created, and they have thereby committed shirk in this, even though they do not know it, because Allah the Almighty has clarified that He has speech. He said:
نِّي اصْطَفَيْتُكَ عَلَى النَّاسِ بِرِسَالَاتِي وَبِكَلَامِي
"Indeed, I have chosen you above the people with My messages and My words" (Al-A'raaf 7:144)
and He said in another Ayah:
وَكَلَّمَ اللَّهُ مُوسَى تَكْلِيمًا
"And Allah spoke to Moses directly" (An-Nisaa' 4:164)
Thus, He informed that He has speech and that He spoke to Musa (peace be upon him). He said regarding His speech to him:
يَا مُوسَى إِنِّي أَنَا رَبُّكُ
"O Moses, indeed, I am your Lord" (TaHa 20:12).
So whoever claims that His saying:
يَا مُوسَى إِنِّي أَنَا رَبُّكُ
"O Moses, indeed, I am your Lord" (TaHa 20:11)
is created and not His speech has committed shirk with Allah, because he claims that a creation said to Musa: "Indeed, I am your Lord." Thus, this claimant has made another lord for Moses besides Allah. And Allah’s saying also to Moses in His speech to him:
فَاسْتَمِعْ لِمَا يُوحَى إِنَّنِي أَنَا اللَّهُ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا أَنَا فَاعَبْدُنِي
"So listen to what is revealed. Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me" (TaHa :13),
this claimant has made a deity for Moses other than Allah. And He said in another Ayah to Moses in His speech to him:
يَا مُوسَى إِنِّي أَنَا اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ
"O Moses, indeed, I am Allah, Lord of the worlds" (Al-Qasas 28:30).
So whoever does not testify that this is the speech of Allah, that He spoke it and Allah said it, and claims that it is created, has committed great shirk and slander against Allah because he claims that a creation said to Musa:
يَا مُوسَى إِنِّي أَنَا اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ
"O Moses, indeed, I am Allah, Lord of the worlds" (Al-Qasas 28:30).
Thus, this claimant has made a lord for the worlds other than Allah. What shirk is greater than this? The Jahmiyyah in this matter remain between two kinds of kufr: if they claim that Allah did not speak to Musa, they have rejected the Book of Allah and disbelieved in it. And if they claim that this speech:
يَا مُوسَى إِنِّي أَنَا اللَّهُ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ
"O Moses, indeed, I am Allah, Lord of the worlds" (Al-Qasas 28:30)
is created, they have committed shirk with Allah. These Ayat clarify that the Qur'an is the speech of Allah the Almighty, and they clarify the shirk of those who claim that the speech of Allah is created, and that Allah's words are created, and that what Allah revealed to His prophets is created. (Hilyah al-Awliyaa' 9/244)
Despite this, imam ibn Abi 'Aasim (who narrated from Abu Haatim ar-Razi, al-Bukhaari, and Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, died in 187 AH) stated at the end of his book "as-Sunnah," when explaining the foundations of the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah: "And among what the scholars have unanimously agreed upon Attributing to the Sunnah..." Among what he mentioned was his statement: "And the Qur'an is the Speech of Allah, blessed and exalted, and Allah spoke it. It is not created, and whoever says it is created, from those upon whom the proof has been established, is a kaafir in Allah the Great." Thus, he reported the consensus that declaring specified takfeer against those who say the Qur'an is created is conditional upon the proof being established against them.
The statement of imam Abu 'Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Sallaam in his book "al-Eemaan" regarding the Jahmi: "He is considered by us to be removed from the beliefs of the followers of the pure monotheistic religion due to his opposition to the words of Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) through rejection and denial." This opposition only applies to those among them who have had the evidence presented to them. How can someone who has not received the proof of revelation be accused of opposing it through rejection and denial?! The emergence of the Jahmiyyah during the time of the Salaf occurred in the centers of knowledge where the foundations of the Sunnah were evident at the hands of the leading scholars in various fields. This is why ibnul-Mubaarak and Yoosuf ibn Asbat excluded them from the groups of Ahlul-Qiblah. Imam Ahmad mentioned the consensus of the scholars on their disbelief. Therefore, their statements about them should be understood in this context. Allah knows best. (Source)
Al-Aajurree said in ash-Shari'ah:
"Al-Firyabi informed us, saying: 'Abdur-Rahman ibn Ibraaheem ad-Dimashqi narrated to us, saying: Al-Waleed, meaning ibn Muslim, narrated to us, saying: Al-Awzaa'ee, from al-Qaasim ibn Hazan, from az-Zuhri, from ibn 'Abbaas, who said: "Qadar is the system of Tawheed. Whoever unifies Allah, the Almighty, and believes in Qadar, it is the firmest handhold that will never break. And whoever unifies Allah, the Almighty, but denies Qadar, his denial of Qadar nullifies his Tawheed."
Abu 'Abdullah Ahmad ibn al-Husayn ibn 'Abdul-Jabbar as-Soofi informed us, saying: Muhammad ibn Bakkaar narrated to us, saying: Ismaa'eel ibn 'Ayyaash, from 'Umar ibn Muhammad ibn Zayd, and Ismaa'eel ibn Raafi', and 'Abdur-Rahman ibn 'Amr, who attributed it to 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbaas that he used to say: "Qadar is the system of Tawheed. Whoever unifies Allah, the Almighty, but denies Qadar, his denial of Qadar nullifies his Tawheed. And whoever unifies Allah and believes in Qadar, it is the firmest handhold."
And with this chain of narration, from ibn 'Abbaas, that he used to say: "A door of shirk has been opened for the people of the Qiblah: denial of Qadar. So do not argue with them, lest their shirk flows through your hands."
(2/875-877) This last narration was also narrated by al-Laalikaa'i (4/696). Mentioning these narrations in the works of creed indicates that there is nothing objectionable in their content. Ibnul-Qayyim explicitly stated that this is shirk in ar-Ruboobiyyah.
Despite this, it has been established that the majority of the leading scholars of the Salaf, if not all of them, refrained from declaring specified takfeer on individuals unrestrictedly. This is evidenced by what was narrated by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi in al-Kifaayah fee 'Ilm ar-Riwaayah, under two consecutive chapters: "Chapter: What Has Been Reported Regarding Learning from the People of Innovations and Desires and Using Their Narrations as Evidence", after recounting the views of the scholars on the matter and quoting their statements, he concluded the chapter by saying: "And what we rely upon in permitting the use of their reports is the well-known acceptance by the Companions of the reports and testimonies of the Khawaarij and those similar to them among the sinful due to their interpretations. This practice was continued by the Taabi'oon and those who followed them, seeing their commitment to truthfulness, their abhorrence of lying, and their safeguarding themselves from prohibited actions. They denounced people of suspicion and blameworthy ways, narrated ahaadeeth that contradicted their own opinions, and allowed their opponents to use these narrations as evidence against them..." And he began listing the names of narrators from various sects of the people of innovation, including the Khawaarij, Murji'ah, Shee'ah, and others. The key point is his statement: "... And among those who adhered to Qadar and Tashayyu' were... ibn Abi Najeeh, who was a Mu'tazili, and 'Abdul-Waarith ibn Sa'eed, Shibl ibn 'Abbaad, Sayf ibn Sulayman, Hishaam ad-Dastuwaa'i, Sa'eed ibn Abi 'Aroobah, and Sallaam ibn Miskeen, and they were Qadariyyah..." Until he said: "Among a large number of people whose mention would be extensive, the scholars of old and recent times have recorded their narrations and relied on their reports. This has become almost a consensus among them, which is one of the strongest proofs in this matter, thereby strengthening the likelihood of correctness."
And he also said in "Chapter: Mentioning some of what has been transmitted from the imams of the hadith scholars regarding the permissibility of narrating from people of desires and innovations. We have already narrated from Abu 'Abdullah ash-Shaafi'ee about the permissibility of accepting the testimony of people of desires, except for a specific group among the Raafidhah. Similar statements are attributed to Abu Haneefah, the imam of the opinion holders, and to Qaadhi Abu Yoosuf." (He meant what he mentioned in the previous chapter, saying: "A group of scholars accepted the reports from people of desires, as long as they are not known to consider lying permissible or to testify in favor of those who agree with them without having actual evidence. Among the fuqahaa' who held this view is Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idrees ash-Shaafi'ee, who said: 'The testimony of people of desires is accepted, except for the Khattaabiyyah from the Raafidhah because they believe in giving false testimony for their supporters.' He mentioned that this is also the view of ibn Abi Layla and Sufyan ath-Thawri, and similar reports are attributed to Qaadhi Abu Yoosuf.") Then he mentioned many reports with his chain of narration. The most significant among them is what he narrated from 'Ali ibn al-Madini, may Allah have mercy on him, who said: "If I were to abandon the people of Basrah because of their belief in al-Qadar, and if I were to abandon the people of Koofah because of that opinion, meaning at-Tashayyu', the books would be ruined." By his statement "the books would be ruined," he meant that the hadith would disappear. The narration of transmitters from the Qadariyyah is found in as-Saheehayn (al-Bukhaari and Muslim) and others.
And it is known that ash-Shaafi'ee's acceptance of the testimony of the people of desires except for the Raafidhah indicates their Islam according to him, as mentioned by ibnul-Qayyim in "at-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah" in the seventy-eighth chapter.
Some have claimed that this matter is a point of contention among the Salaf, specifically whether their innovation is described as shirk or not. They assert that those who described them as mushrikeen did not excuse them for ignorance and misinterpretation, while those who did not describe them as mushrikeen excused them for ignorance and misinterpretation. However, there is no evidence of this distinction in the authenticated books of beliefs or in the books of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel (criticism and evaluation of narrators). If this were established, it would have been reported from them, just as their differentiation between those who affirmed knowledge of Allah's decree among the Qadariyyah and those who denied it among their extremists was reported. Particularly given that many narrators from Basrah fell into this, and Basrah was a stronghold of the Qadariyyah. Despite this, we do not find any such detailed distinction, but rather a general acceptance of their narrations, as stated by ibn al-Madini, a contemporary of imam Ahmad: "If I were to abandon the people of Basrah... the books would be ruined." And the absence of such a detailed distinction in this regard. If the matter were as claimed by these individuals, this would have warranted a detailed distinction, even from some of them.
And they raised an objection regarding this with the following argument:
It is what al-Khallaal narrated in "as-Sunnah" from imam Ahmad, where he said: Abu Bakr al-Marwadhi informed me, saying: I heard Abu 'Abdullah being asked about someone who said that there are things that Allah did not create, asking if this person would be considered a mushrik. He said: "If he denies Allah's knowledge, then he is a mushrik and should be asked to repent. If he repents, then all is well; if not, he should be killed. This is because he said that Allah, the Exalted, does not know a thing until it happens." (3/558, No. 939)
And they used this to argue that the statement of the Qadariyyah is not considered shirk according to Ahmad specifically or the Salaf in general.
This is a weak argument because it is well known among scholars that there is a disagreement on whether every kaafir is a mushrik or not. [See: "Al-Fasl" by ibn Hazm, 1/214, and "al-Jawaab as-Saheeh liman Baddala Deen al-Maseeh" by ibn Taymiyyah, 1/224-229]. They are in agreement in certain contexts but not others, which ibn Taymiyyah detailed in "al-Jawab as-Saheeh". Therefore, these individuals have not accurately represented the position of imam Ahmad on this matter.
Rather, his statement falls into the category of what was narrated by al-Laalikaa'i. He said: And I, Muhammad, said: Yahya narrated to us, saying: 'Ali ibn Muslim narrated to us, saying: Sulayman ibn Harb narrated to us, saying: Hammaad ibn Zayd, from al-Ja’d Abu 'Uthman, said: Sulayman ibn Qays al-Yashkuri, who was from the people of the house, narrated to us, saying: “I said to Jaabir ibn 'Abdullah: Are there Taaghoot among the people of the Qiblah? He said: No. I said: Did you use to call anyone from the people of the Qiblah a mushrik? He said: No.” Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah 6/2246, No. 1228. This was said at the time of the appearance of the Khawaarij and their declaration of takfeer for the one who commits major sins.
And similar to the wording reported by Abu'l-Qaasim al-Asbahaani in "al-Hujjah fee Bayaan al-Mahajjah" from imam "Maalik ibn Anas, when he was asked: How did He rise? He said: The rising (istiwaa') is not unknown, the kayfiyyah (how) is beyond comprehension, believing in it is obligatory, doubting it is shirk, and asking about it is an innovation." (2/108)
Thus, what is meant by mushrik and shirk in both narrations is kaafir and kufr, and this is clear from the context.
And what attests that this is also the intended meaning of imam Ahmad from his statement:
It was narrated by al-Khallaal in "as-Sunnah," where he said: Abu Bakr told us: I asked Abu 'Abdullah (imam Ahmad) about the Qadari, and he did not declare takfeer on him if he acknowledged the knowledge (of Allah). (3/532; No. 871)
He also said: And Abu Bakr al-Marwazi reported: I said to Abu 'Abdullah (imam Ahmad): "A man has a relative who is a Qadari?" He replied: "Qadar does not take him out of Islam." I said: "Those people did not used to call to Qadar, but what about someone who was knowledgeable and denied the knowledge?" He said: "If he denies it, he disbelieves." (3/531; No. 870)
He also said: "Qadar does not take him out of Islam, but if he denies the knowledge, he disbelieves." This was narrated by 'Abdullah in "as-Sunnah" [quoted from: "al-Khurasaaniyyah" by at-Tarifi, p. 284].
The narrations from imam Ahmad explain each other, and Allah knows best.
Return to the main page